Ruman S/O Rahish Khan vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioners, owners of various trucks, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court challenging the suspension of their vehicle registration certificates. The impugned orders were passed by various Regional Transport Officers (RTOs) and District Transport Officers (DTOs). The petitioners contended that the suspension orders were passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing and that the vehicles are their sole source of livelihood. The respondents are the State of Rajasthan and its transport authorities. The judgment does not specify the tax period or the amount in dispute.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders suspending the registration certificates of the petitioners' vehicles are liable to be set aside. The primary reasoning was that the petitioners were not afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing before the suspension orders were passed, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The Court also acknowledged that the vehicles in question are the source of bread and butter for the petitioners and their families. However, the revocation of suspension is conditional. The petitioners must produce their vehicles for inspection by the Transport Department to examine their make, design, and check for mechanical alterations or overloading. If any such issues are found, appropriate orders will be passed strictly in accordance with the law. This arrangement is solely for the purpose of verification and inspection and does not authorize the vehicles to ply on the road for any other purpose. The petitioners are directed to report to the respective DTOs on June 10, 2026, between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM, after which they must file a reply within 15 days. The competent authority will provide a hearing on June 25, 2026, and adjudication will follow within 15 days.

Key Issues

1. Whether the suspension of registration certificates of the petitioners' vehicles by the Transport Department authorities is sustainable in law when the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of hearing? (Question of law, turning on principles of natural justice). 2. Whether the suspension of vehicles, which are the sole source of livelihood for the petitioners and their families, is a proportionate measure? (Question of mixed law and fact). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the suspension orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as they were not given a fair hearing before their registration certificates were suspended. They also emphasized that these vehicles are their primary means of earning a livelihood, and their suspension causes significant hardship. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records that learned counsel for both parties are in agreement that the controversy is covered by previous judgments of co-ordinate benches. Therefore, no specific arguments were recorded for the revenue.