LAWS(RAJ)-2025-9-3

MOOLCHAND MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On September 17, 2025
Moolchand Meena Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the present bunch of petitions revolve around identical issues of facts and law, and the petitions herein are filed seeking analogous reliefs; and the present petitions are adjudicated by this common judgment which shall be applicable upon all the petitions connected herein on mutatis mutandis basis.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that these petitions are filed under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek redressal of grievances arising from the arbitrary and unjust actions of the respondents. It is apprised to the Court that the primary issue herein is that the respondents have suspended the Registration Certificates (RCs) of the petitioners' vehicles/trucks, without complying with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and other allied statutes. It is further submitted that the said action of the respondents violates not only the procedural requirements of the governing statutes, such as issuing notices, providing adequate opportunity for hearing, or ensuring proper service of notices, but also the principles of natural justice. Nevertheless, as a result of the aforementioned, hefty penalties were imposed upon the petitioners for alleged overloading, merely on the basis of third party evidence, such as reports from the Mining Department, without conducting physical verification.

(3.) Learned counsel has relied upon the provisions of Ss. 53, 113, 114, and 194 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (primarily), along with the principles of natural justice and the General Clauses Act, 1897 qua mandatory effective service. It is submitted that if notices or orders are not served at the correct and complete addresses, the service is deemed to be defective and incomplete. Additionally, counsel has referred to provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which mandate granting three-four opportunities for hearing, and has submitted that neither of the aforementioned provisions and procedural mandates were adhered by the respondents herein.