Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Vikram Singh S/O Shri Umrao Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan … on 3 January, 2025
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2025:RJ-JP:264]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16306/2024
Vikram Singh S/o Shri Umrao Singh, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o 117/1, Mohalla Nalapur, Santosi Mata Mandir Ke Pass,
Ward No. 6 Narnaul, District Mahendragarh (Haryana).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Transport And Road Safety
Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Additional Transport Commissioner, Rajasthan 409
Sahakar Marg, Jyoti Nagar Lalkothi, Jaipur.
4. The Additional Regional Transport Officer (City).,
Transport Department Jagatpura, District Jaipur.
5. The Additional Regional Transport Officer-II, Jaipur
(Raj.)
6. The Registration Authority Transport Department,
Kotputli, District Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16865/2024
Hardeep Singh S/o Shri Balbinder Singh, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Kirarod, Afganan Narnaul, District Mahendrargarh
(Haryana)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Transport And Road Safety
Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Regional Transport Officer (City),
Transport Department, Jagatpura, District Jaipur.
4. The Additional Transport Commissioner, Rajasthan 409
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:45:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:264] (2 of 4) [CW-16306/2024]
Sahakar Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.
5. The Additional Regional Transport Officer-II, Jaipur
(Raj.)
6. The Registration Authority, Transport Department,
Kotputli, District Jaipur.
7. The District Transport Officer, Balotara (Rajasthan)
—-Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16987/2024
Parvinder Singh S/o Shri Tara Singh, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Near Kailash Pahalwan Ka Ghar, Mohalla Dashmesh
Nagar, Narnaul, District Mahendragarh (Haryana).
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Transport And Road Safety
Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Additional Transport Commissioner, Rajasthan 409
Sahakar Marg, Jyoti Nagar Lalkothi, Jaipur.
4. Additional Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,
Transport Department Jagatpura, District Jaipur.
5. The Additional Secretary (City), Regional Transport
Officer-I, Jaipur (Raj.)
6. The District Transport Officer, Registration Authority
And Road Safety Officer Dholpur, District Dholpur
(Raj.)
7. The Registration Authority Transport Department,
Kotputli, District Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sultan Singh Kuri with
Mr. Bhagirath Singh Kuri
For Respondent(s) :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:45:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:264] (3 of 4) [CW-16306/2024]
Judgment / Order
03/01/2025
Since, all these writ petitions share similar facts and a
common question of law, they have been heard together and
are being decided vide this common order.
For the sake of convenience, the facts are being referred
from the file of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16306/2024: Vikram
Singh V/s State of Rajasthan.
Under challenge in the writ petition is the show cause
notice dated 09.09.2024 issued by the Additional Regional
Transport Officer (City), Jagatpura, Jaipur under Section 55(5)
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(for brevity, “Act of 1988”).
The only contention advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioners to assail the aforesaid show cause notice is that
under Section 55(2) of the Act of 1988, it is only the original
registering authority which is empowered to cancel the
registration and not any other registering authority. Inviting
attention of this Court towards the registration certificate
issued in petitioner’s favour on 17.11.2018, he would submit
that since, the original registering authority is the Transport
Authority situated at Kotputli, the impugned notice issued by
the Transport Authority, Jagatpura, Jaipur is bad in law not
being the original registering authority. He, therefore, prays
that the writ petitions be allowed and the notice impugned be
quashed and set-aside.
Heard. Considered.
Section 55(2) of the Act of 1988 reads as under:
“Cancellation of registration-:
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:45:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:264] (4 of 4) [CW-16306/2024]
(2) The registering authority shall, if it is
the original registering authority, cancel the
registration and the certificate of
registration, or, if it is not, shall forward the
report and the certificate of registration to
the original registering authority and that
authority shall cancel the registration.”
The aforesaid provision provides in no uncertain terms
that although, the registration certificate can only be cancelled
by the original registering authority; but, other registering
authority is also empowered to issue show cause notice and
conduct an inquiry in the matter. However, if cancellation of
the registration is required, such authority shall forward the
report and the certificate of registration to the original
registering authority for its cancellation. Thus, it nowhere
denudes any registering authority other than the original
registering authority from issuing any show cause notice
and/or conducting an inquiry in the matter.
In view thereof, this Court does not find any illegality in
the show cause notice issued by the Regional Transport
Authority, Jagatpura, Jaipur since, it does not amount to the
cancellation of the registration certificate for which, obviously,
only the original registering authority is empowered and
entitled. Resultantly, these writ petitions are dismissed being
devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
NEERU/28-30
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:45:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)