Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Aas Mohammad S/O Shri Ruda Khan vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 August, 2019
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11858/2019
Aas Mohammad S/o Shri Ruda Khan, aged about 51 years, R/o
Patti Katla, Bahadurpur, District Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary, Transport
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Joint Secretary, Transport Department, Jaipur.
3. Regional Transport Office, through Regional Transport Officer,
Alwar.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4103/2017
Fkrishan Gopal Bansal And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4517/2017
Goods Transport Operators Union
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10416/2017
Mamta Agarwal And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12811/2017
Saparudeen
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15875/2017
Virendra Singh And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(2 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15876/2017
Dharamveer And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16087/2017
Yogesh Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16716/2017
Mohammad Azad And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16717/2017
Javed Khan And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16968/2017
Brijpal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17748/2017
Sanjay Singh And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18076/2017
Rohtash Singh And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18967/2017
Bheem Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(3 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18968/2017
Satyapal
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23182/2017
Gurdeep Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 595/2018
Dinesh Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 596/2018
Nihal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 599/2018
Smt Anju Arora And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 794/2018
Khajan Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 797/2018
Chandra Kant Bansal And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1418/2018
Islam
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(4 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2379/2018
Smt Neelam Gupta
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2456/2018
Jile Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2459/2018
Rohitas Kumar Bhidudi
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2461/2018
Ramdhan Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2849/2018
Rambir
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2850/2018
Manphool
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3510/2018
Brijesh Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3930/2018
Sandeep Kumar Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(5 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4303/2018
Virendra Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4315/2018
Kanwar Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4624/2018
Pappu Khan And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4625/2018
Subban Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4747/2018
Abdul Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4754/2018
Chandra Bhan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4755/2018
Chandra Bhan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4762/2018
Pradeep Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(6 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4768/2018
Mukesh Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4787/2018
M/s Best Cargo Movers
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5143/2018
Gurvinder Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5144/2018
Mohammad Yusuf Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5145/2018
Sharif Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5362/2018
Kailash Kukreja And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5526/2018
Sant Ram Gurjar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5527/2018
Dalbir
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(7 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5528/2018
Kashmir Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5529/2018
Nirbhay Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5530/2018
Ashok Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5597/2018
Uday Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5672/2018
Sahab Khan And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5749/2018
Rohitas
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5750/2018
Kailash Chand
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5751/2018
Sunil Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(8 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5825/2018
Isru And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5829/2018
Aslam Khan And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5872/2018
Harbhan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5932/2018
Sahid Husain And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5934/2018
Piyush Goyal
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5938/2018
Anil Kumar And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5950/2018
Rahul Chugh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5952/2018
Ramjan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(9 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5960/2018
Ravindra Singh And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5961/2018
Pritam Das
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5962/2018
Harish Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6040/2018
Sushil Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6041/2018
Mukesh Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6152/2018
Jaswant Singh And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6277/2018
Virendra Kumar And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6411/2018
Ranjot Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(10 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6412/2018
Dhiraj Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6435/2018
Hanif Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6449/2018
Manoj Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6508/2018
Manish
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6509/2018
Tilakraj
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6514/2018
Khatu Shyam Roadway
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6535/2018
Sunil Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6583/2018
Jamsed Khan And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(11 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6587/2018
Arsad And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6604/2018
Charendra Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6605/2018
Chandgi Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6606/2018
Mukesh Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6770/2018
Subhash Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6771/2018
Rakesh Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6772/2018
Rakesh Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6773/2018
Ramniwas Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6826/2018
Pyare Lal Saini
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(12 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6827/2018
Taruna Saini
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6878/2018
Manish Kumar Gupta And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7098/2018
Inam Khan And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7160/2018
Komal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7244/2018
Kasam Khan And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7245/2018
Kallu Khan And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7246/2018
Basira Khan And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7290/2018
Vir Singh And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(13 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7301/2018
Khurshid Ahmed
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7322/2018
Ajit Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7325/2018
Virendra Kumar Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7328/2018
Ajit Singh Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7366/2018
Praveen Tanwar And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7393/2018
Moja Khan And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7426/2018
Vikas And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7429/2018
Unnas Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(14 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7431/2018
Ajit Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7433/2018
Star Transport Company
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7454/2018
Star Transport Company
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7455/2018
Star Transport Company
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7456/2018
Star Transport Company
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7457/2018
Star Transport Company
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7685/2018
Sanjay Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7686/2018
Jamshed And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7701/2018
Mahavir Singh Kaswan
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(15 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7791/2018
Yashpal And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7946/2018
Satyapal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7947/2018
Sewa Steels Pvt Ltd
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8050/2018
Mubrik Khan And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8181/2018
Satish Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8327/2018
Amit Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8431/2018
Sikander
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8690/2018
Dalip Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(16 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9273/2018
Sandeep Yadav And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9370/2018
Deenu And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9374/2018
Noor Deen Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9728/2018
Phakarudin
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9933/2018
Vikash Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9985/2018
Sher Mohammad
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9986/2018
Mohammad Shakir
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10026/2018
Azad Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(17 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10203/2018
Anand Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10233/2018
Girendra Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10984/2018
Jitendra Kumar And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11124/2018
Mohammad Nanha
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11309/2018
Mubarik Khan And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11310/2018
Mubarik Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11409/2018
Kanaram
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11636/2018
Aaris Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11844/2018
Satar
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(18 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11845/2018
Surender Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11846/2018
Hanuman
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11887/2018
Kishore Kumar Gangwani And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11890/2018
Ayyub
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12018/2018
Anup Singh And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12029/2018
Surendra Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12093/2018
Pritam Chand And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12285/2018
Ramveer Singh And Anr
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(19 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
State Of Raj And Ors
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12802/2018
Moti Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12803/2018
Natthu Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj And Anr
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14007/2018
Hatam Ali S/o Shri Nek Mohammad
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Transport Commissioner Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14009/2018
Dharam Pal S/o Shri Ram Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Transport Commissioner Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14253/2018
Kharag Singh S/o Shri Soran Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Transport Department
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14333/2018
Akram Khan S/o Shri Ayub Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Transport Department
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14505/2018
Veer Singh S/o Sh. Matadeen Tanwar
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Exoffico Secretary,
Govt Of Rajasthan,
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14538/2018
Ajay Methi Son Of Ghasi Ram Methi
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Transport Department Secretariat
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(20 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14616/2018
Suresh Singh S/o Shri Gopal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14789/2018
Narendra Kumar S/o Ram Mehar
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15118/2018
Ajad Khan S/o Gabbu Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15172/2018
Mubeen Khan S/o Shri Jhabu Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15404/2018
Deendayal S/o Shri Nemi Chand, By Caste Brahmin
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Transport Department
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15773/2018
Naushad Ali S/o Shri Asghar Ali
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15785/2018
Anil Kumar S/o Lehna Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15787/2018
Vinod Kumar S/o Lehna Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15788/2018
Dinesh Kumar S/o Vijendra
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(21 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15835/2018
Irasad Son Of Ayub
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Transport Department
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15891/2018
Sagar Transport Company
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16751/2018
Aspak Khan S/o Shri Hamid Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17744/2018
Roshanlal S/o Shri Tek Chand
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Transport Department
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18432/2018
Hajari Lal S/o Shri Shanker Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18563/2018
Irfan Son Of Rajak
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18990/2018
Bhagwan Singh S/o Maharaj Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19028/2018
Nasru Khan S/o Ibrahim Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(22 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20038/2018
Barkatulla Son Of Shri Aalam Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Transport Department
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20366/2018
Mohabbat Khan Son Of Shri Noor Mohammad Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Transport Department
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20543/2018
Shree Dhain Auto Logistics (P) Ltd.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20550/2018
Farukh Khan S/o Shri Hamida Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20648/2018
Rahul S/o Isak, By Caste Meo
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21213/2018
Rajesh Son Of Shri Mohar Singh, By Caste Aheer
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22100/2018
Mukesh Singh S/o Shri Gopal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Transport Department
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22279/2018
Desh Raj Son Of Shri Dalip Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Transport Department
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(23 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22602/2018
Aspaq S/o Shri Sirajuddin,
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23373/2018
Deewan S/o Shri Harchand
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23474/2018
Faruk Khan S/o Shri Shamsuddin
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23488/2018
Tofeek Mohammad S/o Shri Shahid
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23586/2018
Arsad Son Of Shri Hamid Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23592/2018
Ratan Singh S/o Harphool Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23669/2018
Krishan Kumar Yadav S/o Lal Singh Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23907/2018
Naveen Singh S/o Hanuman Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23940/2018
Niraj S/o Hanuman Singh
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(24 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23956/2018
Sansa Devi W/o Ratan Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23959/2018
Nabbu Khan S/o Lokaman Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24095/2018
Kajji Ram S/o Shri Ram Swaroop
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24281/2018
Ajay Kumar Son Of Shri Dharampal
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24442/2018
Hakim Khan S/o Hamid Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24552/2018
Khub Ram Saini S/o Bhoma Ram Saini
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24573/2018
Asar Khan S/o Shri Chhuttan Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24743/2018
Iliyas Khan Son Of Shri Sahab Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(25 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24886/2018
Netram Jat Son Of Shri Sardara Jat
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24899/2018
Ravindra Singh S/o Shri Chhitar Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24900/2018
Ravindra Singh S/o Shri Chhitar Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25649/2018
Yashpal S/o Ramniwas
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25650/2018
Sanjay Kumar S/o Omprakash
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25651/2018
Nisar Khan Son Of Shri Majeed Khan, By Caste Mev
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25795/2018
Khajan Singh Son Of Shri Deep Chand
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25985/2018
Manju Yadav W/o Omprakash Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(26 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26003/2018
Nitesh Beni S/o Beni Prasad Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26053/2018
Surendra Pareek S/o Radhe Shyam
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26103/2018
Sanjay Kumar Yadav S/o Lilaram Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26451/2018
Manoj Kumar Son Of Shri Ishwar Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26553/2018
Aayush Distributors
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26626/2018
Pradeep Kumar S/o Prahlad Singh,
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26964/2018
Insar S/o Asulup
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26989/2018
Suresh Kumar S/o Shishupal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27231/2018
Balram S/o Shri Matoli Ram
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(27 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27302/2018
Anil Kumar S/o Mamla Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27377/2018
Alisha Sales
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27386/2018
Aaliya Sales,
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27388/2018
Megha Sales
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27496/2018
Ashok Kumar S/o Ramji Das
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27797/2018
Anup Singh Son Of Shri Laxman Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27798/2018
Varis Son Of Shri Rahmat
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27890/2018
Manoj Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Vijay Pal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(28 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 238/2019
Govind Kumar Sharma S/o Somdutt Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 420/2019
Indrapal S/o Suresh Chand
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 678/2019
Radhey Shyam S/o Ghantoli Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 926/2019
Vijay S/o Surjani
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 965/2019
Vikas Yadav S/o Rajendra Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 967/2019
Mahbub Khan Son Of Nasib Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2019
Ramdhan Yadav S/o Shri Ajit Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 991/2019
Sahid Son Of Shri Isaf, By Caste Mev
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(29 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1033/2019
Ratan Lal Yadav S/o Shri Phool Singh Yadav,
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1236/2019
Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Murari Lal Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1241/2019
Ramchander Verma S/o Shri Baru Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1374/2019
Raghuvir Singh S/o Shri Ram Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1434/2019
Ravi Shankar S/o Shri Ramji Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Transport Commissioner Cum Ex-Offico Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1445/2019
Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Shish Pal
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Transport Commissioner Cum Ex-Offico Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1446/2019
Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Mahender Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Transport Commissioner Cum Ex-Offico Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1616/2019
Pappu Ram Saini S/o Shri Ganesh Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1617/2019
Rinku Kumar Meena S/o Ram Karan Meena
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(30 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1622/2019
Mamraj S/o Rama
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1629/2019
Manoj Kumar Saini S/o Hiralal Saini
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1634/2019
Mahesh S/o Jormal
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1635/2019
Surendra Kumar Saini S/o Ramjivan Saini
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1670/2019
Rajendra Singh S/o Kehar Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1676/2019
Saini Tempo Transport Company
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1851/2019
Rishipal Son Of Shri Birendra
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1996/2019
Sher Singh Son Of Shri Phakir Chand
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(31 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2002/2019
Yakat Ali S/o Shri Muharu
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2115/2019
Surendra Singh S/o Shri Pratap Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2384/2019
Birendra Singh S/o Mahendra Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2514/2019
Sudesh Kumar S/o Desh Raj
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2778/2019
Mustak Son Of Shri Majeed Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3055/2019
Dinesh Kumar S/o Surajbhan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3099/2019
Khem Singh S/o Shri Teekam Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3269/2019
Innas S/o Shri Sahabdeen
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(32 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3344/2019
Deepak Kumar Son Of Shri Deshraj
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3359/2019
Sibba Khan S/o Kanhaiya Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3456/2019
Sapat Khan S/o Shri Kamaru Deen
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3555/2019
Omprakash Yadav S/o Jagram Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3617/2019
Tophik Khan S/o Shri Noor Mohammad
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3911/2019
Hanuman Prasad S/o Shri Suraj Bhan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3912/2019
Yogesh Kumar S/o Shri Jaipal
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3913/2019
Sohan Lal Saini S/o Suka Ram Saini
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3914/2019
Asru Khan S/o Muhir Khan
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(33 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3919/2019
Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3921/2019
Virender Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3922/2019
Rafik Khan S/o Noor Mohammad
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner Transport Cum Ex-Officio Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4055/2019
Shokat Khan Son Of Shri Ayub Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4096/2019
Abdul Kayyum Khan Son Of Shri Chawla
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4237/2019
Ramniwas Yadav S/o Udmiram Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4256/2019
Jakir Husain Son Of Shri Jasmal Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4263/2019
Mahipal Yadav S/o Shri Chhitar Ram Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(34 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4436/2019
Naresh Singh S/o Shri Man Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4455/2019
Tota Ram S/o Dharam Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4497/2019
Sumit Sharma S/o Shri Mohan Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4569/2019
Shoukin Khan S/o Shri Sahid Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4686/2019
Farukh S/o Aasudeen
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4746/2019
Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Dharmpal
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4855/2019
Sanjay Kumar Gupta S/o Brahmanand Gupta
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4860/2019
Salim S/o Shri Nisar Ali
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(35 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4869/2019
Arjun Singh S/o Shri Ratan Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4895/2019
Billu S/o Subhash Chand
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4896/2019
Sukhbindra Son Of Shri Sube Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4915/2019
Umar Mohammad S/o Karim
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5008/2019
Sunil Kumar Jat S/o Dalpat Jat
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5077/2019
Dharmendra Kumar S/o Shri Ram Chandra
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5176/2019
Ishak Khan S/o Abdul Karim
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5199/2019
Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Sher Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5254/2019
Jaikam Khan Son Of Shri Sannoo Khan
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(36 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5269/2019
Jakir Hussain Son Of Shri Ummar Mohamma
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5282/2019
Mohammad Hanif S/o Shri Bhagu Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5318/2019
Billu Kumar Swami S/o Sh. Ishwar Lal Swami
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5322/2019
Esup Khan S/o Shri Deen Mohammad
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5339/2019
Mahabir Gurjar Son Of Shri Rampat Gurjar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5340/2019
Mohd. Imran S/o Sh. Usman
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5434/2019
Akbar Son Of Shri Ashraf Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5446/2019
Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Khillu
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(37 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5580/2019
Mahipal Singh S/o Shri Manveer Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5634/2019
Anoop Kumar S/o Shri Ram Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5653/2019
Santosh Kumar S/o Shri Vidhyadhar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5674/2019
Prakash Chand Son Of Shri Maher Chand
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5787/2019
Jai Singh S/o Kalyan Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5802/2019
Suresh S/o Manohar Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5836/2019
Yakat Ali S/o Shri Muharu Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5866/2019
Sanjay Dutt S/o Meharchand
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(38 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5873/2019
Vikram Singh S/o Banwari Lal Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5888/2019
Sube Singh S/o Shri Makhan Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5894/2019
Manoj Kumar S/o Sohan Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6141/2019
Nasruddin S/o Dhammali
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6147/2019
Rahil Khan S/o Rasid Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6162/2019
Shri Shyam Transport Company
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6163/2019
Shri Shyam Transport Company
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6167/2019
Badve Engg. Ltd.-2G
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6172/2019
Shri Shyam Transport Company
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(39 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6185/2019
Badve Engg. Ltd.-2G
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6188/2019
Badve Engg. Ltd.-2G
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6209/2019
Juned Khan S/o Sh. Faruk
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6344/2019
Imran Son Of Shri Makasud
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6352/2019
Ved Prakash S/o Shri Suraja Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6463/2019
Waseem S/o Yunush
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6493/2019
Suman Devi W/o Deen Dayal
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6525/2019
Virender Singh Saran S/o Shodan Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(40 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6560/2019
Aasu Khan S/o Saleman Kahn
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6649/2019
Ruddar S/o Imrat
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6656/2019
Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Balram
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6722/2019
Sanjeev Chaudhary S/o Umrao Chaudhary
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6751/2019
Rajkumar Singh S/o Ramotar Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7001/2019
Bhallu Ram S/o Kishori Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7073/2019
Meghshyam S/o Dori
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7092/2019
Vijay S/o Surjani
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(41 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7160/2019
Shamim Ahamed S/o Shri Abdul Raseed
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7176/2019
Ramjan Khan Son Of Shri Chuttali Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7271/2019
Dinkar Sharma S/o Late Satish Kumar Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7464/2019
Raseed Khan S/o Subhan Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7506/2019
Asam S/o Munshi
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7592/2019
Rahis Khan S/o Bhoormal Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7759/2019
Bajrang Singh S/o Shoy Lal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7775/2019
Jaikam Khan S/o Shri Sube Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7788/2019
Bundu Khan S/o Idu Khan
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(42 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7950/2019
Satish Kumar Sharma S/o Girraj Prasad Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8034/2019
Nurdeen Khan S/o Shri Khillu Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8069/2019
Jahul Khan S/o Shri Mohammad
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8109/2019
Sunil Choudhary Son Of Shri Sukhdev Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8279/2019
Sahun Son Of Shri Asar Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8306/2019
Tahir Khan S/o Sufeda Khan,
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8365/2019
Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Sadhu Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8577/2019
Sunder Lal Son Of Ramkuwar,
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(43 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8875/2019
Naveen Kumar S/o Sh. Lal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8889/2019
Sameen Khan S/o Sher Mohammad
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8991/2019
Arshad Khan S/o Shri Basheer Khan,
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9260/2019
Rahis Khan S/o Shri Bhoormal Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9308/2019
Radheshyma Son Of Shri Raj Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9356/2019
Mukesh Saini S/o Sanwal Saini
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Commissioner
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9893/2019
Sandeep Singh Shekhawat S/o Vikram Singh Shekhawat
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9894/2019
Kaluram Choudhary S/o Sh. Ramniwas Choudhary,
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(44 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10021/2019
S. K. Packaging
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10253/2019
M/s Gaurav Bharat Gas
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10608/2019
Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Haripal
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10777/2019
Nasib Khan S/o Suleman
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10778/2019
Sher Mohammad S/o Nasru Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10832/2019
Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Ram Sharan
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10833/2019
Devendra Kumar S/o Shri Ram Sharan
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10835/2019
Jai Maa Sherawali Traders
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11099/2019
Randhir Singh S/o Shri Gopal Singh
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(45 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11152/2019
Sahil S/o Shri Navi Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11202/2019
Shouyab Khan S/o Shri Asar Mohammad
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11229/2019
Suleman S/o Shri Subedar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11258/2019
Pradeep Yadav S/o Shri Rajendra Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11340/2019
Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Girraj Prasad
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11453/2019
Aariph Khan S/o Shri Subedar Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11572/2019
Rajesh Kumar Yadav Son Of Shri Keshu Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11713/2019
Aslup S/o Shri Sahabudeen
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(46 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11741/2019
Gyanchand Yadav S/o Gyarsi Lal Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11748/2019
Ratan Singh Chauhan S/o Shri Satyapal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11750/2019
Ummed Singh S/o Shri Satyapal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11812/2019
Gafur Khan Son Of Shri Suban Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11829/2019
Mehaboob Khan S/o Majid Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11830/2019
Samundra Singh S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12120/2019
Radhe Shyam S/o. Ram Kumar Yadav
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(47 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12223/2019
Rajan Singh S/o Shri Diwan Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11642/2017
Rajveer Singh Andors
----Petitioner
Versus
State Transport Dep Ors
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Anita Aggarwal with Mr. Laxmikant
Mr. Praneet Sharma
Mr. Sameer Jain with Ms. Mahi Yadav
Mr. Daksh Pareek & Mr. Arjun Singh
Mr. Dhruv Atre, Ms. Sangeeta Sharma
Mr. Kuldeep Aswal,
Mr. Ashok Kumar Meena
Mr. Surendra Singh, Mr. R.P. Garg
Mr. Shafat Rahim Khan,
Mr. Azad Ahmed, Mr. P.C. Dewanda,
Mr. Sushil Pujari, Mr. Sanjay Khan
Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav
Mr. Vivek Choudhary
Mr. Balbeer Singh Beniwal
Mr.Kailash Choudhary
Ms. Shefali Sharma on behalf of
Mr. Lokesh Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General
assisted by Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma
Mr.Raunak Singhvi & Mr. Darsh Pareek
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Judgment Reserved on :: 20/07/2019
Judgment Pronounced on :: 22/08/2019
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(48 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
By the Court (Per Hon'ble The Chief Justice):
1. All these petitions challenge the validity of a notification dated
8.3.2017 (hereafter "the impugned notification") as violative
of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The impugned notification compels transport vehicles which
weigh between 3000 kgs and 16500 kgs to pay a one-time
(hereafter "lump sum" or "life time") motor vehicle tax.
2. The brief facts are that in the State of Rajasthan, motor
vehicles are taxed by virtue of the Motor Vehicles Taxation
Act, 1951 and rules framed thereunder. The scheme of
taxation, i.e. the rate of tax and the general regime of
collection and exemptions are governed by rules and
notifications issued from time to time.
3. The District Transport Officer appointed under the law time
being in force or any officer authorized by the State
Government is designated, by Section 3 to be the Taxation
Officer for the purposes of the Act and Rules. Section 4 of
the Act deals with imposition of tax; it constitutes the
charging section. The validity of that provision was
considered and upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of
Automobiles Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. Vs. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 1962 SC 1406, wherein the validity of the
provision was upheld. Later, Section 4 was amended in the
year 1997; Sections 4A and Section 4B were substituted
subsequently by the provisions relating to special road tax.
4. Initially lump sum tax was introduced in the year 2005;
Section 4C was enacted in relation to imposition of lump-
sum tax. A further proviso to Section 4-C was introduced in
the year 2007. Using that power (under proviso to Section
4C) the State, by notification dated 14.07.2014 imposed on
certain motor vehicles registered or assigned in the State on
or after 1.8.2014 a compulsorily lump sum tax. All categories
of four-wheeler goods vehicles with gross vehicle weight of
more than 3000 kgs (and up to 7500 kgs) were so taxed.
Afterwards, the State Government by notification dated
9.3.2015 notified that certain motor vehicles registered on or
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(49 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
after 1.4.2007 had to compulsorily pay lump sum tax. This
was enhanced by notification dated 8.3.2016; while stating
that all categories of goods vehicle with gross weight of more
than 7500 kgs. and upto 12000 kgs., were included for lump
sum tax.
5. By the impugned notification dated 8.3.2017 all categories of
four wheel goods vehicle with gross vehicle weight more
than 3000 kgs, and weighing upto 16500 kgs, are to be
assessed for lump sum tax taxation.
6. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that tax is a
compulsory exaction of money by the State for a specific
service rendered. The levy of tax is for the purpose of
general review which when collected forms public revenue of
the State. An element of fairness and reasonableness is a
necessary ingredient for fixing the tax liability. It is argued
that the levy of a lump sum tax on ageing vehicles which
cannot ply in near future is unfair, arbitrary and
unreasonable. Counsel urge that no public purpose is served
by collecting such lump sum tax, which would be
unreasonable and excessive, given that those vehicles would
have paid tax annually for a considerable period of their
motorable lives. Lump-sum payment of tax on vehicles which
are more than 7 years old is unjust especially when they
cannot operate for much longer on the road. It is argued
that no public interest would be served nor it creates any
expedient means for serving the public purpose.
7. Mr. Sameer Jain and Ms. Anita Aggarwal, counsel for the
petitioners argue that the notification has been issued only
with a view to enrich government coffers and provide the
State with revenue unjustly, arbitrarily and without any basis
de-hors the principle role of the State as a welfare State.
The notification is thus ultra vires.
8. It is also urged that the impugned notification is arbitrary
because the calculation of tax for older vehicles is based on
today's market price of vehicle charging exaggerated tax
from old vehicle owners. Counsel argued that the slab for
one year old vehicles and more than 8 years old vehicle is
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(50 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
the same, creating an unreasonable classification particularly
which does not take into consideration that the life of a
vehicle in Alwar is only 10 years. This feature argue counsel,
is because the State overlooked and did not consider that
due to the orders of the National Green Tribunal, motor
transport vehicles which aged more than 10 years cannot ply
in the National Capital Region (NCR) and owners of such
vehicles are made to pay higher sums of money for the
fewer number of years of the vehicles that are left on road.
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that this regional
imbalance has resulted in over-classification, which is
contrary to Article 14 and renders the tax unreasonable.
9. It is argued that presently vehicle owners are paying
16000/-per year which for another 2 and 3 years would be
about 16,000 to 10,000 depending upon the age of the
vehicle but by the present notification they have been
demanded a sum about 1 lakh which is a highly
exaggerated amount. The net result is that the State has
kept in mind only its objective of filling up its coffers and
penalize the vehicle owners by charging exorbitant amount.
Learned counsel for the petitioners highlighted in this
context that the lump sum tax payable, in terms of the cost
of vehicle, determinable under the rules is highly unjust and
arbitrary, because it is dependent upon a notional price,
which is increased by 15% annually. In this regard, it was
submitted that vehicles which have been subjected to annual
tax, in terms of the options previously exercised, and where
vehicle owners have paid repeatedly for about 10 years,
would have to pay a lump sum tax, despite the relative
remaining short life span of the vehicle.
10. Learned counsel also submitted that given the fact that the
commercial value of vehicles would have completely
diminished, since they would have been written down
altogether in the books, such old vehicles, which are aged 8
years or more, are made to pay lump sum tax, which would
mean that they would pay all over for the notional life time
of the vehicle, and not the balance life time.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(51 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
11. It is highlighted that the tax slab for Alwar and Bharatpur
ought to have been different since those districts are
governed by the NCR policies and notifications whereby
vehicles more than 10 years old are not allowed to run on
the road; yet the Government without taking into
consideration these aspects formed a scheme of lump sum
tax payment. This would impact members of the general
public. It is further argued that in the State of Rajasthan
other than the NCR the policy till now is that all diesel
vehicles can operate up to the age of 15 years. However, the
position in the NCR region is different. The State ignored this
completely and imposed a uniform lump sum tax which
enforced arbitrarily and illegally by the Regional Transport
Office, Bharatpur. This, it is stated has a disproportionate
impact on the people of the NCR areas, as opposed to those
living elsewhere and amounts to discriminatory taxation.
12. It is argued that the impugned tax has brought into force a
regime whereby every transport owner is compelled by law
to pay a lifetime tax, regardless of whether the vehicle is
used in the State or otherwise. Previously the vehicle owner
had the choice of paying lifetime tax; however, the impugned
notification takes away that element of choice, and extracts
payment of the entire lifetime tax. This removal of choice is
arbitrary and pre-supposes uniform road use by all transport
owners to their optimum or maximum weight levels. There is
no basis for such assumption. Counsel highlighted that the
notification was not preceded by any scientific study or
research, but imposed merely as a measure of revenue
maximization.
13. The State in its counter affidavit argues that Section 4-C of
Rajasthan Transport (Taxation) Act 1951 deals with the
lump-sum tax scheme. Section 4 of the Act deals with
imposition of tax. The validity of that provision was
considered in the Automobiles Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd.
case (supra); its vires was upheld. In 1997, Section 4 was
amended; also Sections 4A and 4B were substituted by the
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(52 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
provisions relating to special road tax. Likewise, Section 4C
was enacted in relation to imposition of lump-sum tax.
14. The State points out that initially lump sum tax was
introduced in the year 2005 and pursuant to powers given
under the Act, a further proviso to Section 4-C was
introduced in 2007. By notification dated 14.07.2014, the
State Government thought in public interest that certain
motor vehicles registered or assigned in the State on or after
1.8.2014 compulsorily had to pay lump sum tax. All
categories of four wheeled goods vehicle with a gross vehicle
weight of more than 3000 kgs. to 7500 kgs. were brought
within the fold of such tax measure. The state later by
notification dated 9.3.2015 notified that certain motor
vehicles registered on or after 1.4.2007 had, compulsorily, to
pay lump sum tax. This notification was modified by
notification dated 8.3.2016 which stated that all categories
of goods vehicle having gross weight of more than 7500 kgs.
and upto 12000 kgs., were brought within the fold of lump
sum tax. Now, the impugned notification dated 08.3.2017
states that all category of four wheel goods vehicle with a
gross vehicle weight more than 3000 kgs. and upto 16500
kgs., are to be assessed under the lump sum tax scheme.
15. It is argued by the learned Advocate General that the
progressive nature of the levy and the inclusion of categories
of vehicles, based on their weight shows that initially the
State contemplated lump sum tax system which was found
just and proper for the public at large. In a phased manner
it was been enhanced to 16500 kgs. It is submitted that the
impugned notification has now been challenged by the
petitioners; however, till the notification came into existence,
no one including the petitioners challenged the
scheme/provision though the law was in existence at least
for the vehicles with registered laden weight capacity up to
12000 kgs.
16. It is submitted that though the petitioners contend to
carrying on business in Bharatpur, nonetheless they have
been granted national permits and permits for route. This
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(53 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
means that they can ply their goods vehicles in other parts
of the State of Rajasthan or inter-State routes and except
NCR- there is no restriction that they cannot ply the aged
more than 10 years. Even otherwise, according to the
petitioners, the impugned notification operates harshly upon
them. It is submitted that harshness is not a ground for
challenging the validity of a provision of law. If some people
reside in Bharatpur and experience difficulties then that
cannot be a ground to hold a law to be arbitrary.
17. It is submitted that the petitioners are the owners of four-
wheeled goods vehicles weighing more than 3000 kgs. and
are weigh up-to 16500 kgs. It is submitted that initially lump
sum tax was introduced in the year 2005 and in pursuance
of powers given under the Act, a further proviso to Section
4-C was introduced in the year 2007. By notification dated
14.7.2014 the State Government thought in public interest
that certain motor vehicles registered or assigned in the
State on or after 1.8.2014 would have to pay lump sum tax
and it was made clear that all categories of four wheeled
goods vehicle with a vehicle weight more than 3000 kgs. to
7500 kgs. will be of that category. Thereafter, lump sum tax
was increased to 12000 kgs. and now it has been increased
to 16500 kgs. Lump sum taxation has therefore be
introduced in a phased manner; yet the petitioners never
challenged the said provision. The State contends that the
petitioners are bound by the principle of estoppel, and are
not entitled to challenge the notification dated 8.3.2017.
18. Without prejudice to the other contentions, it is argued that
the courts adopt a very circumspect approach towards
judging validity of tax laws. It is submitted that the
legislature is afforded greater leeway in fiscal and tax
legislation, as compared with other laws and policies, in
matters of classification of individuals, articles and goods,
services etc. as well as in the grant of concessions and
benefits in such laws, than in other legislation. The learned
Advocate General relied on State of Tamil Nadu v M.
Krishnappan & Anr., 2005(4) SCC 53, in support of his
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(54 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
contention. It was also argued that the legislation, i.e the
Act, was upheld in Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) v State
of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 SC 1406, in this regard.
19. It was argued that the concept of lump sum or life time tax,
is not unknown; the State relied on Krishnappan (supra) to
say that in the present case, the introduction of the concept
through progressive increase of levy was to ensure that
vehicle owners got used to such lifetime taxation. The
Advocate General pointed out that rebate or relief has been
consciously given by the State, in the impugned notification,
which prescribe differential rates, having regard to the age of
the vehicle. The learned Advocate General submitted that
the arguments on behalf of some petitioners about the
inability of vehicles to ply more than 15 years is not correct,
because there is no rule or regulation in force in the State of
Rajasthan, which prohibits such use. Counsel relied on Rule
88 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereafter
"Central Rules") to submit that it is only national permits
which cannot be operated after a specified duration. Thus,
there is no 15 year rule which in a blanket manner, prohibits
the use of motor vehicles after they attain a particular age.
It was urged that the State has ample power to exempt or
grant relief to a class or classes of taxpayers; in the present
case, in case of hardship, it is open to the petitioners to
approach the authorities for such relief or special concession,
in the case of vehicles.
20. The Advocate General pointed out that Rule 42 of the
Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules governs the issue of valuation.
He also argued that in the present case, the tabular chart
published by the State based on which lump sum tax is to be
paid by various classes of vehicles, factors in the relative age
of the vehicles: it is submitted that as far as vehicles which
are more than five years are concerned, the State itself has
classified them according to their age, and imposed a lesser
rate of lump sum tax. The imposition of lump sum tax, which
is dependent upon the determination of value (of the
vehicle), in terms of the rule, it is highlighted, has not been
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(55 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
challenged. Therefore, the contention of the tax being
arbitrary or oppressive, is unjustified. Counsel also relied on
Federation of Mining Association of Rajasthan v Union of
India, 2007(2) WLC 716 (DB), a Division Bench judgment of
this court, to submit that in Rajasthan too, the court had
recognized that the basis of the tax is the load of the vehicle
on the road; thus irrespective of the year of its manufacture,
the tax would remain constant. Relying on State of West
Bengal v Kesoram Industries, 2004(10) SCC 201, it was
urged that enactment of a tax levy is entirely different from
a regulation; courts would in judicial review adopt a
deferential scrutiny in relation to fiscal statutes. It was also
argued that in considering the validity of taxation statutes
against a complaint of arbitrariness or discrimination, the
court would not lightly set aside or interfere with the working
of a levy or such statute, unless there is perversity or gross
disparity "resulting in clear and hostile discrimination", as
held by the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation v State
of Bihar, 2018(1) SCC 242.
21. Before proceeding with analysis of the rival contentions, it
would be useful to extract the relevant provisions of the Act
and the Rules as well as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and
the relevant Central Rules. They are reproduced below:
"Provisions of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act, 1951
3. Exemption (1) The State Government may by
notification in the Official Gazette exempt either
totally or partially whether prospectively or
retrospectively any motor vehicles or class of
motor vehicles from the payment of the tax,
penalty or interest imposed or charged by or under
the provisions of this Act or rules made there
under:
Provided that the interest or penalty or both shall
be exempted only for the purposes of giving effect
to the amnesty schemes of limited duration.
(2)Every notification issued under this section shall
be laid before the House of the State Legislature at
the session thereof next following, and shall be
liable to be rescinded or modified by a resolution of
that House and the rescission or modification so
made, shall after publication by notification in the
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(56 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
Official Gazette be deemed to have come into
force.
4. Imposition of tax.- (1) Save as otherwise
provided by this Act or by the Rules made
thereunder or any other law for the time being in
force, there shall be levied and collected on all
motor vehicles used or kept for use in the State,-
(a) a tax in respect of such vehicles which are not
covered by clause (b), (c), (cc) or (d), at such
rates as may be specified by the State Government
by notification in the Official Gazette which shall
not exceed 10% of the cost of the chassis/vehicle
per annum:
Provided that where the rates are not specified, on
quarterly 10, half yearly or monthly basis, by the
State Government, by notification in the Official
Gazette and if the tax is permissible to be paid
quarterly 10,half yearly or monthly, the amount
payable shall be equivalent to the one fourth
10[,one half] or one twelfth respectively of the
annual rate of tax;
(b) a One Time Tax in the case of non-transport
vehicles at such rates as may be notified by the
State Government by notification in the Official
Gazette which 11[shall not exceed 16% of the cost
of the vehicle/chassis:] Provided that in the
addition to One Time Tax there shall be paid by the
owner or person having possession or control of a
motor vehicle on which onetime tax is payable, any
tax or penalty as was payable under this Act for
any period prior to the coming into force of the
provisions of Chapter V of the Rajasthan Finance
Act, 2005 (Act No. 15 of 2005) at such rates as
were applicable to such vehicles from time to time
Provided further that on every transfer of
ownership of motor vehicle mentioned above, an
additional one-time tax shall be playable at such
rates as may be notified by the State Government
in the Official Gazette;
(c) a tax in respect of motor vehicles registered
outside the State and using roads in Rajasthan, at
such rates, as may be notified by the State
Government in the Official Gazette which shall not
exceed Rs. 500/- per seat for 7 days or part
thereof in case of passenger vehicles and shall not
exceed Rs. 250/- per thousand Kg. Gross Vehicle
Weight/Registered Laden Weight or part thereof for
30 days or part thereof in case of goods vehicles
and shall not exceed Rs. 5000/- per thousand Kg.
of Unladen Weight or part thereof for 30 days or
part thereof in case of Construction Equipment
Vehicles;
(cc) a tax in respect of motor vehicles or motor
vehicle chassis temporarily registered and passing
through the State using roads in Rajasthan, at
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(57 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
such rates, as may be notified by the State
Government in the Official Gazette which shall not
exceed Rs. 5000/-;
(d) a tax on dealers in, or manufacturer of, motor
vehicles in respect of such vehicles as are in their
possession in the course of his business as such
manufacturers, or dealer under the authorisation of
a trade certificate granted or deemed to be granted
under the Motor Vehicle Rules for the time being in
force in the State of Rajasthan, at such rates as
may be specified by the State Government by a
notification in the Official Gazette which shall not
exceed rupees ten thousand for every 50 vehicles
or part thereof in respect of three or four wheeled
vehicles; and shall not exceed Rs. 10,000/- for
every 100 vehicles or part thereof in respect of two
wheeled vehicles; and
(e) a onetime tax in respect of transport vehicles
at such rates as may be notified by the State
Government in the Official Gazette, which shall not
exceed 50% of the cost of the vehicle/chassis:
Provided that in addition to onetime tax, there
shall be paid by the owner or person having
possession or control of transport vehicle on which
onetime tax is payable any tax or penalty as was
payable under this Act for any period prior to the
coming into force of the provisions of the Chapter
V of the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2005 (Act No. 15
of 2005) at such rates as were applicable to such
vehicles from time to time: Provided further that
the owner or person having possession or control
of transport vehicles shall have option either to pay
tax levied under clause (a) or onetime tax levied
under clause (e).
*******************
4-B. Special Road Tax .- In addition to the tax levied under section 4 and subject to the rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf, there shall be levied and paid to the State Government a special Road Tax on all transport vehicle expect those transport vehicle which have paid lump sum tax payable under section 4-C)] at the rates as may be specified by notification in the Official Gazette, by the State Government which shall not exceed 7 [Rs 2,000/-] per day in respect of passenger vehicle and shall not exceed Rs. 250/- per thousand Kg. of load carrying capacity or part thereof for thirty days in respect of goods vehicles of other States or for vehicle plying on temporary permits of this State, and 8 [not exceeding 5% of the cost] of the chassis/vehicle per month in respect of other vehicles.
Explanation.- The cost of the chassis/vehicle for the purpose of computation of tax shall include (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM) (58 of 75) [CW-11858/2019] purchase price and such other elements as may be prescribed by the State Government.
Provided further that where a motor vehicle other than those which has paid onetime tax under section 4-C is found plying after the surrender of the certificate of registration, the special road tax on such vehicle shall be payable forthwith for the entire period for which such certificate of registration was surrendered, along with a penalty equal to five time the amount of Special Road Tax but no such tax or penalty shall be charged from empty vehicle going for repair or test purposes.
4-C. Imposition of Lump sum tax.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 4 and section 4-B and subject to the rules as may be made by the State Government there shall be levied and paid to the State Government a lump sum tax on all transport vehicles at the rates as may be specified by the notification in the Official Gazette by the State Government which shall not exceed 50% of the cost of vehicle/chassis:
Provided that the owner or person having possession or control of transport vehicle shall have option either to pay tax levied under clause
(a) or clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 4 and section 4-B or lump sum tax under section 4-C :
Provided further that the State government may by notification in the Official Gazette require the owners or the persons having possession of such class of transport vehicles registered on or after 01.04.2007 as may be specified in the notification to pay lump sum tax under section 4-C instead of tax payable under clause (a) or clause (e) of sub-
section (1) of section 4 and section 4-B. **************************** **************** Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules,
42. Cost for the purpose of computation of tax- Cost of the vehicle/chassis shall be arrived at in case:
(a) the vehicle/chassis is purchased in the financial year in which the tax due, by including the elements of taxes and levies in purchase price prevailing on 1st April of the year of purchase.
(b) The vehicle/chassis purchased earlier than the year in which the tax is due by adding the element of notional price increase at the rate of 15 (fifteen) percent per annum compounded annually on the purchase price prevailing on 1st April of the year of purchase of similar type of vehicle:
Provided that the owner of the vehicle/chassis or any person authorized by him in this behalf, may opt (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM) (59 of 75) [CW-11858/2019] to have the cost of his vehicle assessed as to be the same as the cost assessed at current price of similar type of vehicle as prevailing on 1st April of the year in which the tax is due:
Provided further that if the original purchase bill is not produced by the vehicle owner, and/or the option of having the cost assessed at the current price is not exercised by the owner, the price of the similar types of vehicles existing as on 1st of April of the year for which the tax is due shall be taken for computation purposes:
Provided also that in case of notional price increase of 15% compounded annually, the cost of the vehicle so arrived at shall not exceed the current cost of similar types or new vehicles in the financial year in which the tax is due:
Provided also that in case of vehicle purchased/registered outside the state or military disposal vehicles, cost shall be as applicable in the year in which the tax is due for the similar type of vehicle of this State.
Explanation (i) Purchase prices for determining the cost for computation of tax shall be as prevailing at Jaipur and if in case the dealer of any vehicle is not available at Jaipur, the cost shall be as prescribed by the Transport Commissioner.
(ii) When under clause (n) of sub-rule (1) of rule 2 of the these rules, similarity is established with more than one vehicle/chassis, then the vehicle/chassis having lower cost shall be taken for the purpose of computation of tax."
Rule 5.9 of Raj. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990:
5.9. Issue of permit:- (1) The Secretary/Executive Officer of the [State Transport Authority/Regional Transport Authority] shall, intimate the applicant within seven days from the date of order of the [State Transport Authority/Regional Transport Authority] regarding grant or rejection of the application and on receipt of the prescribed obtained form R.S. 5.19 for the permit shall be issued which shall be in one of the following forms:-
(i) In respect of Stage Carriage permit In Form R.S. 5.9
(ii) In respect of service of Stage Carriage In Form R.S. 5.10
(iii) In respect of a particular contract carriage In Form R.S. 5.11
(iv) In respect of casual contract carriage In Form R.S. 5.12
(v) In respect of contract carriage to be used In Form R.S. 5.13 for private hire
(vi) In respect of Private Service vehicle In Form R.S. 5.14
(vii) In respect of Goods Vehicle In Form R.S. 5.15
(viii) In respect of National Permit In Form R.S. 5.16
(ix) In respect of All India Tourist Permit In Form R.S. 5.17
(x) In respect of temporary permit In Form R.S. 5.18
(xi) In respect of cash receipt cum temporary In Form R.S. 5.18 A permit for contract/goods carriage
(xii) In respect of a particular educational In Form R.S. 5.18 B institution Bus (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM) (60 of 75) [CW-11858/2019] (3) Save in the case of Temporary Permit every permit shall be in two portion A and B. One copy of part A only shall be issued. One copy of part B shall be issued in respect of every vehicle authorised by the permit and where a permit relates to more than one vehicle each such copy shall carry, in addition to the number of permit a separate serial number contained in Brackets after the number of permit.
Each such copy shall be sealed and signed by the authority by which the permit is issued and by the authority by which the permit is countersigned. (4) (3) The holder of a permit shall cause the relevant copy of part B thereof or the Temporary permit, as the case may be, to be carried in Glassed Frame or other suitable container in or fixed to the interior of the vehicle in such a way as to maintain it in a clean and legible condition, readily available for inspection at any time by the authorised person."
Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 "66. Necessity for permits. - (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used :
Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage:
Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a good carriage either when carrying passengers or not :
Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him.
(2) The holder of a goods carriage permit may use the vehicle, for drawing of any trailer or semi-
trailer not owned by him, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:
[Provided that the holder of a permit of any articulated vehicle may use the prime-mover of that articulated vehicle for any other semi-trailer.]"(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(61 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
*****************
*****************
Rule 88 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989:
88. Age of motor vehicle for the purpose of national permit.--(1) No national permit shall be granted in respect of a goods carriage, other than multiaxle vehicle, which is more than -[twelve years] old at any point of time.
(2) No national permit shall be granted for a multiaxle goods carriage which is more than fifteen years old at any point of time.
(3) A national permit shall be deemed to be invalid from the date on which a goods carriage covered by the permit completes fifteen years in case of a multiaxle goods carriage and -[twelve years] where the vehicle is other than a multiaxle goods carriage, unless such goods carriage is replaced.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this rule, the period of 125[twelve years] or fifteen years, as the case may be, shall be computed from the date of initial registration of the motor vehicle covered under its pennit or the prime mover in case of an articulated vehicle.] (4) No national permit shall be granted in respect of a multi-axle trailer approved to carry a gross vehicle weight of more than 50 tonnes, which is more than 25 years old at any point of time, the period of 25 years being computed from the date of initial registration of the said trailer.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this rule, "multi-axle trailer" means a trailer having more than two axles.
[(5) A national permit shall be in such security printed watermark paper and shall carry such hologram as the State Government or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, issuing such permit, may specify:
Provided that the use of such security printed water-mark paper carrying such hologram shall come into force on or before six months from the date of commencement of the Central Motor Vehicles (Third Amendment) Rules, 2002."
22. In M. Krishnappan & Ors., (supra) the Supreme Court while dealing with a challenge to introduction of the "life time" or lump sum tax, in the State of Tamil Nadu, held as follows:
"17. The short question which arises for consideration in the present case is - whether the High Court was right in holding that with the introduction of the concept of "value" as the basis (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM) (62 of 75) [CW-11858/2019] of the tax, the impugned levy fell outside entry 57 of list-II of the seventh schedule to the Constitution.
18. It is well to remember that the State maintains old roads and makes new ones. These roads are at the disposal of those who use motor vehicles either for private purpose or for trade or commerce. India is a cost-push economy. It has high rate of inflation. The costs of maintenance as well as the costs of material used in the maintenance of the roads increases by the day. This naturally costs the State, which has to find funds for making new roads, and for maintenance of those that are in existence. The impugned tax is regulatory and compensatory in nature in the sense that it is imposed to meet the increasing costs of maintenance and upkeep and to that extent it is not plenary. However, as stated above, the limited question is : whether the tax ceases to be compensatory and regulatory with the introduction of "weight-cum-value" index and whether the said index is contrary to the scheme of the said 1974 Act.
19. At the outset it may be noted that depreciation is a function of time and maintenance. In the present case, we are concerned with the "life time tax" which is one time payment spread over the economic life of the vehicle. The said tax is based on time, use and maintenance of the roads. As stated in the judgment of this Court in Bombay Tyre (supra), any standard, which maintains a nexus with the essential character of the levy can be regarded as a valid basis for assessing the measure of the levy. Applying the said test to the present case, we hold that the index of "weight-cum-value"
maintains the nexus with the essential character of the levy in question and, therefore, the High Court erred in holding that by introduction of the value of the vehicle as a parameter, the levy ceases to be regulatory and compensatory in nature. It is important to bear in mind that entry 57 of list-II of the seventh schedule to the Constitution refers to taxes on vehicles suitable for use on roads. Under the said entry, a field is provided to the State Legislature to impose the impugned tax in respect of every aspect of a vehicle. When the Constitution provides a field of legislation, it has to be read in the broadest possible terms. When the State is empowered to levy taxes on goods, it is empowered to levy such taxes on every aspect of such goods. Similarly, when the State is empowered to levy tax on the (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM) (63 of 75) [CW-11858/2019] vehicle, it is empowered to levy tax on every aspect of the vehicle. Throughout the Constitution, the legislative power relating to taxes and the legislative power relating to general subjects is treated separately and is not subsumed under a general head. Applying the above tests to the present case, we are of the view that the High Court had erred in holding that on account of introduction of "weight-cum-value"
index in the third schedule to the Act, the impugned tax had ceased to be regulatory and compensatory and consequently, the said levy fell outside entry 57 list-II.
20. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow, U.P. v. Chhata Sugar Co. Ltd. reported in 2004(165)ELT369(SC) , this Court has held that a regulating measure may also contain taxing provisions.
21. In the case of State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and Ors. reported in [2004]266ITR721(SC) , the Constitution Bench of this Court has held that a power to tax may be exercised for the purposes of regulating trade, industry, commerce or any other activity; the purpose of levying such an impost is the exercise of sovereign power to effectuate regulation though incidentally the levy may contribute to the revenue.
22. In the present case, we are satisfied that the levy in question being one time tax continues to be a part of regulatory measure. For administrative reasons in the matter of collection of tax, one time payment of tax is administratively convenient and at the same time, it is also beneficial to the users of the vehicles who do not have to go to the office of the RTO every year to pay the annual taxes. It is also beneficial to the users of the motor vehicles, as they do not have to pay taxes at the increased rates from time to time over the economic life of vehicle as contemplated by Section 3(2) of the Act. Moreover, weight alone may not provide a sufficient parameter/basis for imposition of "life time tax". As an illustration, we may point out that the weight of the Honda CRV Car is 1500 kg. as against the weight of Tata Indigo GLX which weighs 1490 kg. and yet the cost of Honda CRV is Rs. 15,24,396 lacs whereas the price of Tata Indigo is 5,08,651 lacs. Hence, weight index alone may not constitute the basis of "life time tax".(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(64 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
23. In the circumstances, we reiterate that introduction of "weight-cum-value" index will not make the levy non-regulatory/non-compensatory. Further, under the unamended 1974 Act weight was the basis of the impugned levy as an annual tax. But with the introduction of a "life time tax", the entire future projection spread over the economic life of the vehicle had to be taken into account along with other factors like fall in the value of the rupee, inflation, rising costs of the material, cross subsidy etc. and consequently, it was necessary to introduce the new index of "weight-cum-value" and factors like paying capacity of the owner. In our view, these factors have nexus with the use of the roads over a period of time and hence, the impugned levy fell within entry 57 list-II of the seventh schedule to the Constitution.
24. We also do not find the impugned levy to be discriminatory, arbitrary or unreasonable so as to violate Article 14 of the Constitution as held by the High Court. In the case of Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Ors. v. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai and Anr. reported in [1986]2SCR700 , this Court held that Article 14 forbids class legislation and not reasonable classification and in order to pass the test of reasonable classification, the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or class of persons that are grouped together from the others left out of that group and that such differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question.
25. In the case of The State of Gujarat and Anr. etc. v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad and Anr. etc. reported in [1974]3SCR760 , this Court held that where size is an index, discrimination between large and small is permissible. Article 14 does not require that every regulatory statute should apply to each and everyone equally in the same business.
26. Similarly, in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Balkrishna Badiya (supra), this Court has held that taxing of a company owned vehicle at three times the rate payable by an individual owner did not make the enactment violative of Article 14 as the Legislature had the power to distribute the tax burden in a flexible manner and the Court would not interfere with the same.(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(65 of 75) [CW-11858/2019]
27. There is no merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the respondent herein that there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution by imposing higher burden of tax on vehicles owned by "others" vis-a-vis the vehicles owned by the "individuals" in part-I of the third schedule. We do not find merit in this argument. Firstly, as held by this Court in the case of Bombay Tyre (supra), levy is a constitutional concept whereas collection of a tax as well as incidence of tax comes within the statutory measure. The mode of collection or the incidence of tax cannot be the conclusive test to decide the nature of the levy. The nature of the levy is a concept different from the mode of collection of tax. Levy is a constitutional concept whereas mode of collection of tax is a statutory concept. They stand on different footings. Secondly, it is important to remember the words of Lord Wilberforce, quoted with approval by House of Lords in the case of Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd. v. Mawson (Inspector of Taxes) reported in (2005) 1 All ER 97 stating that "a tax is generally imposed by reference to economic activities or transactions which exist in the real world". When an economic activity is to be valued, it is open to the law maker to take into account various factors including the paying capacity of the user, the value of the vehicle, the economic life of the vehicle etc. Lastly, in the present case, for the vehicles registered before 1.7.1998 the option between annual and one time tax is retained."
23. The impugned notification modified the nature of the motor vehicle tax structure, which is a lump sum tax, based on value and weight of the transport vehicle. The preceding analysis shows that the levy in the Act, is in terms of Section 4 (1). Motor vehicle taxation depends on the class of vehicle (transport, non-transport vehicle, vehicle based on chassis, etc.). The parent statute, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) decision, underwent a series of changes. In 1997, the Act was amended and new provisions were substituted. Section 4 (1)
(a) enabled tax to be paid, in respect of transport vehicles at monthly, quarterly or half yearly rates. The regime for non- transport vehicles and those registered outside the State, however was different. By Rajasthan Act No. 15, of 2005, Section 4C was introduced, which (through its proviso) made (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM) (66 of 75) [CW-11858/2019] lump sum tax payment optional for all transport vehicles. By Rajasthan Act No. 4 of 2007, the second proviso was added (to Section 4C) which made it obligatory for payment of lump sum tax in respect of all transport vehicles registered on or after 01.04.2007. This again, was dependent upon the introduction of such system of lump sum taxation by the State, through Official Gazette.
24. It is thus, obvious that the obligation to pay lump sum tax was imposed through statute, as far back as in 2007; this applied prospectively to all classes of vehicles registered after 01.04.2007. However, the State did not by Gazette notify the date or the rates (of lump sum tax) applicable to the specified class or classes of vehicles. This changed for the first time, on 14.07.2014 when the State issued notification (SO 94) obliged all categories of four wheeled goods vehicles with gross weight of more than 3000 kgs. and up to 7500 kgs., all motor cabs with seating capacity of six (excluding driver) and maxi cabs with seating capacity of six or more, up to twelve (excluding driver) to pay lump sum tax, instead of tax under Section 4 (1) (a) and (e). This applied to vehicles registered or assigned to the State of Rajasthan on and after 01-08-2014. This notification was amended by a notification (published in the Gazette) dated 09-03-2015 which modified the earlier notification to the effect that lump sum tax was to be paid in respect of the said three categories of vehicles (spelt out in the earlier notification dated 14-07-2014) registered on or after 01-04- 2007. This notification came into effect from 01-04-2015. The third notification (dated 08-03-2016 brought into force with effect from 01-04-2016) expanded the scope of the previous notification and made lump sum tax payable in respect of vehicles with a gross weight of 7500 kgs. or more, up to 12000 kgs. Thus, all vehicles falling in this category became liable to pay lump sum tax from 01-04-2016. The impugned notification expanded the scope of lump sum taxation: its overall effect, was that all categories of four (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM) (67 of 75) [CW-11858/2019] wheeled vehicles weighing more than 3000 kgs. (3 tons) and up to 16500 kgs. (16.5 tons) are to pay lump sum tax.
25. In the opinion of this court, the facial challenge to the introduction of the life time (or lump sum) tax, based upon its determined value, cannot be sustained, in the light of the decision in Krishnappan. As held by the Supreme Court, the previous basis (in the case of the vehicle owners in that decision) was weight of the vehicle. However, the introduction of the weight cum value, was commended by the court, which outlined various benefits: avoiding annual payments (on the part of the vehicle owners) and the attendant possibility of frequent increase in rate of taxes; stability of the rate, to the customer of the services provided through the vehicle (or the vehicle), as the case may be, and a more rational basis for working out the maintenance of the roads. Therefore, the question of the challenge to the levy as arbitrary fails. Besides, the court is bound by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court, which have held that in regard to fiscal policies and legislation, judicial scrutiny is narrow and circumspect, since the courts do not have the wherewithal or expertise to tailor policies or judge their efficacy. In Elel Hotels & Investments Ltd. v. Union of India, (1989) 3 SCC 698, this aspect was highlighted:
"Similar contentions as to the unreasonableness of the restrictions which the imposition of the impugned tax was said to bring about on the petitioners' freedom of trade and business and the adverse effect of this tax on a significant area of national economy generally and the Tourism Industry in particular have been considered in the petitions assailing the vires of the Expenditure Tax Act, 1987. It is now well settled that a very wide latitude is available to the legislature in the matter of classification of objects, persons and things for purposes of taxation. It must need to be so, having regard to the complexities involved in the formulation of a taxation policy. Taxation is not now a mere source of raising money to defray expenses of Government. It is a recognised fiscal tool to achieve fiscal and social objectives. The differentia of classification presupposes and (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM) (68 of 75) [CW-11858/2019] proceeds on the premise that it distinguishes and keeps apart as a distinct class hotels with higher economic status reflected in one of the indicia of such economic superiority. The presumption of constitutionality has not been dislodged by the petitioners by demonstrating how even hotels, not brought into the class, have also equal or higher chargeable receipts and how the assumption of economic superiority of hotels to which the Act is applied is erroneous or irrelevant."
26. Recently too, the Supreme Court held, in Vasavi Engg. Col-
lege Parents Assn. v. State of Telangana, (2019) 7 SCC 172, as follows, reiterating its earlier view:
"22. The need for judicial restraint with regard to recommendations of Expert Committees, more particularly in matters relating to finance and economics, was considered in BALCO Em- ployees' Union v. Union of India [BALCO Em- ployees' Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333] , it was held: (SCC pp. 372 & 382, paras 65 & 98) "65. ... Nevertheless, contention is sought to be raised that the method of valuation was faulty, some assets were not taken into consideration and that Rs 551.5 crores offered by M/s Sterlite did not represent the correct value of 51% shares of the Company along with its controlling interest. It is not for this Court to consider whether the price which was fixed by the Evalu- ation Committee at Rs 551.5 crores was correct or not. What has to be seen in exercise of judi- cial review of administrative action is to examine whether proper procedure has been followed and whether the reserve price which was fixed is arbitrarily low and on the face of it, unaccept- able.
***
98. In the case of a policy decision on economic matters, the courts should be very circumspect in conducting any enquiry or investigation and must be most reluctant to impugn the judgment of the experts who may have arrived at a con- clusion unless the court is satisfied that there is illegality in the decision itself."
19. It needs no emphasis that complex execu- tive decisions in economic matters are necessar- ily empiric and based on experimentation. Its validity cannot be tested on any rigid principles (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM) (69 of 75) [CW-11858/2019] or the application of any straitjacket formula. The Court while adjudging the validity of an ex- ecutive decision in economic matters must grant a certain measure of freedom or play in the joints to the executive. Not mere errors, but only palpably arbitrary decisions alone can be interfered with in judicial review. The recom- mendation made by a statutory body consisting of domain experts not being to the satisfaction of the State Government is an entirely different matter with which we were not concerned in the present discussion. The Court should therefore be loath to interfere with such recommendation of an expert body, and accepted by the Govern- ment, unless it suffers from the vice of arbitrari- ness, irrationality, perversity or violates any provisions of the law under which it is consti- tuted. The Court cannot sit as an appellate au- thority, entering the arena of disputed facts and figures to opine with regard to manner in which TAFRC ought to have proceeded without any finding of any violation of rules or proce- dure. If a statutory body has not exercised juris- diction properly the only option is to remand the matter for fresh consideration and not to usurp the powers of the authority."
In Indian Oil Corporation, the court was equally forthright; it held that sans perversity or palpable arbitrariness or gross disparity "resulting in clear and hostile discrimination" courts are to desist from interdicting tax legislation on the ground of unreasonableness or arbitrariness.
27. The next question is whether the imposition of a lump sum taxation regime, on old vehicles (which have already been subjected to annual taxation previously) is arbitrary or unreasonable. One of the serious arguments made was that earlier, the owner or taxpayer had the choice of paying quarterly, half yearly or annually. Such owner/taxpayer had exercised that choice and paid dues for a long time. The argument was that now, subjecting such old vehicles to lump sum taxation is unreasonable.
28. The argument with regard to shorter life span of vehicle which has been subjected to annual taxation previously for a long period such as 8 to 10 years, facially seems appealing. Yet there is a basic fallacy in the submission. The underlying (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM) (70 of 75) [CW-11858/2019] premise for the argument is a definitive life span of motor vehicles. As pointed out on behalf of the State, the restriction of use, of vehicles aged more than 15 years is not universal, but rather confined to those which are plying under national permits, in terms of Rule 88. The other restriction is in some parts of Rajasthan where the NGT's order, banning the plying of such vehicles within the concerned districts (as they form part of NCR) are enforced. However, these two instances are referred by way of exception. In the case of all other vehicles, this Court notices that the material on record- in the form of tabular chart produced by the petitioner (in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4103/2017, Krishan Gopal Bansal & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.), reveals that State has taken care to ensure that value of the vehicles is determined according to its age. The tabular chart- which is part of the State's notification, in-fact determines that the value for one year old vehicles is higher, whereas those for five years and above is lowest (almost 75% lower than those which are one year or older but less than five years). For the facility of reference, the said tabular chart in respect of various vehicles is reproduced as follows:-
"REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER BHARATPUR LIST OF GOODS VEHICLE GVW 12001 TO 16500 SR. TYPE OF GVW WHE COST LST SURCH LST + 1 2 3 4 5 AND NO. VEHICL ELBA ARGE SURCH YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR MORE E SE ARGE OLD OLD OLD OLD THAN 5 VEH. VEH. VEH. VEH. YEAR OLD VEH.
1 LPT 16200 5200 1699000 186890 18689 205579 185021 164463 143905 123347 102790 1613/ 42 2 LPT 16200 6200 1880000 206800 20680 227480 204732 181984 159236 136488 113740 1615/62 TC E3 3 LPT 16200 4855 1751000 192610 19261 211871 190684 169497 148310 127123 105936 1613/ 48 4 LPT 12990 3600 1620000 178200 17820 196020 176418 156816 137214 117612 98010 1109/ 36 5 LPT 12990 4200 1690000 185900 18590 204490 184041 163592 143143 122694 102245 1109/ 42 6 LPT 12990 4800 1743000 191730 19173 210903 189813 168722 147632 126542 105452 1109/48 7 EICHER 16200 5340 2063000 226930 22693 249623 224661 199698 174736 149774 124812 HCV 20.16 (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM) (71 of 75) [CW-11858/2019] 8 EICHER 16000 3485 1955000 215050 21505 236555 212900 189244 165589 141933 118278 TERRA 16 HDR 9 EICHER 16000 3485 2000000 220000 22000 242000 217800 193600 169400 145200 121000 TERRA 16 XP 10 EICHER 16000 5340 2050000 225500 22550 248050 223245 198440 173635 148830 124025 20.16 AVS
29. It is thus clear from a plain reading of the above tabular chart that the State has taken care, at the first instance, that the basis for taxation i.e. value of the motor vehicles is appropriately reflective of their age. The vehicles which are newer i.e. between 1 to 2 years, are valued higher and subjected to higher tax, but lower compared to new vehicles and the value diminishes according to the age. Thus, the actual tax burden levied- evident from the chart, becomes much lower.
30. Having regard to these facts, the Court is of the opinion that a further argument or investigation with respect to the age of vehicles or that older vehicles to pay a lump-sum which cast disproportionate burden on them, is not substantial. The Court is of the opinion that while devising tax structure which has accommodated both, the oldest and the relatively newer vehicles, in an appropriate manner, a further examination of the minutiae as to the impact upon individual taxpayers, is neither called for nor appropriate while judging the validity of the levy.
31. Likewise, as far as the levy on vehicles which cannot ply for more than 10 years is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that there is no discrimination or arbitrariness. Firstly, these vehicles can ply in the rest of Rajasthan- thus right to carry on trade is not prohibited or substantially impaired; secondly the impact of the levy can be softened, if such class of vehicle owners, found exclusively in the NCR region, apply for relief under Section 3 of the Act which empowers the government to provide exemption -either wholly or partially, to "any motor vehicles or class of motor vehicles". Therefore, it is open to the State of Rajasthan to soften the rigors of the taxation, if established in an appropriate or suitable manner.
(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)(72 of 75) [CW-11858/2019] 32. The Court is also of the opinion that the basis of
discrimination i.e. the alleged regional disparity in the impact of the levy, has also not been established. Several authorities have enunciated the principles that mere differentiation in regard to region or impact of laws in different regions of the State- i.e. geographical discrimination, cannot be the basis for holding a law or policy unreasonable or discriminatory. This argument was made Khandige Sham Bhat v. Agrl. ITO, AIR 1963 SC 591 precisely in a similar manner, but rejected by the Supreme Court, in the following terms:
"12. The next argument is that there is discrimina- tion between assessees in Kasaragod area and those in the rest of the Madras area in that in the case of arecanut the assessees of Madras area, other than Kasaragod Taluk, would be in a better position as they gather their crops before Novem- ber. The assessees of the Madras area under the Act formed one class and Section 2-A applies to all of them: Section 2-A applies to both parts of the Madras area i.e. the Malabar area and the South Kanara area. In both the cases the income of the assessees that accrued before November 1, 1956 was not taxable; in both the cases the income that accrued thereafter is liable to tax. The rate also is the same. The statement only shows that all the crops, except arecanut, are gathered by the as- sessees of the entire area during the same period. The fact that in the case of one of the crops the assessees in the Malabar area harvested earlier cannot be a ground for holding that the law has made an unjust discrimination between persons belonging to the same class, but that is due only to the fortuitous circumstance of some assessees gathering the crops earlier than others. As we have pointed out, the arecanut crop is only one of the many crops in that area and the extent of its cultivation in Kasaragod Taluk is comparatively less than that in the entire area of the State or even the Madras area. We cannot, therefore, say that the law made an unjust discrimination be- tween persons belonging to the same class.
Again, in Nazeria Motor Service v. State of A.P., (1969) 2 SCC 576, the ground of geographical basis for discrimination, a basis for challenge, was turned down:(Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM)
(73 of 75) [CW-11858/2019] "8. This is sufficient to dispose of the challenge under Article 19(1)(g) as well. We may in this connection refer briefly to the conclusion of the High Court which was reached on a consideration of the affidavits filed before it. It has been found that there is no material which would warrant the conclusion that the increase in the surcharge of the fares and freight contemplated by the im-
pugned Validating Act would constitute an imped- iment to the trade. The utmost that could be said was that it would result in the diminution of prof- its. Even on the assumption that the profits would be diminished or greatly reduced it cannot be held that there is any infringement of Article (19) (1)(g).
9. Coming to the attack on the ground of violation of Article 14 reference may be made to the back- ground relating to taxation of passengers and goods carried in motor vehicles in the State prior to the formation of Andhra Pradesh. It appears that there was no law in the erstwhile Hyderabad State imposing any tax on passengers and goods. After the merger of Telengana and Andhra areas the laws in operation in the Telengana region continued to remain in force by virtue of the pro- visions of Section 119 of the States Reorganisa- tion Act, 1956. By Act 10 of 1958 the State of Andhra Pradesh amended Act 12 of 1952 inter alia extending that Act, to the Telengana area. This Act (Act 10 of 1958) also amended the prin- cipal Act by adding Section 19 according to which the Government could grant an exemption by means of a notification in respect of any motor vehicle running in a particular area. On November 4, 1961 a notification was issued exempting pas- sengers, luggage and goods carried in stage car- riages from payment of tax under the aforesaid Act within the Telengana area. There can be no manner of doubt that this exemption was given to the operators in the Telengana region for the rea- son that before the extension of the parent Act to this area no tax similar to the one levied under the parent Act was payable in that area and that this exemption was granted under a different en- actment. It is apparent that for these reasons the challenge under Article 14 cannot succeed. The same is the position with regard to the tax payable by the appellants and that which the transporters having permits for inter-State routes have to pay. As has been pointed out in the affi- davits filed on behalf of the State, the laws in the two States, Madras and Andhra Pradesh are dif- ferent and persons having primary permits from Madras are naturally governed by the laws oper- ating in that State. No question of discrimination (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM) (74 of 75) [CW-11858/2019] can arise when taxes are being imposed under two different sets of laws in different States or geographical areas."
33. In CWP No.4103/2017, in addition to the challenge to the impugned notification, Rule 42 of the Rules framed in 1951 is also challenged because it stipulates that the value of the vehicle would be increased by 15% annually. In this context, it is argued by the petitioners that unlike in the case of computation of insurance premium of the vehicles, which is made annual on diminished value, the appreciation of the value of the vehicle is factored in for the purposes of taxation. It is contended that this is not only arbitrary but also unreasonable, thus violative of Article 19(1)(g) and further it infringes Article 301 of the Constitution of India.
34. In a previous judgment of this Court in Federation of Mining Association of Rajasthan (supra), the vires of Rule 42 was upheld. The Court had then ruled that the basis for determining tax and the value of the vehicle was the load and consequently, the annual increase of 15%, cannot be characterised as arbitrary. This Court can do no better than reiterate the reasonings in Federation of Mining Association of Rajasthan(supra), wherein it was pertinently observed as follows:-
"8. As regards rule 42 it was submitted that the manner in which the cost of vehicle is calculated for the purpose of computation of tax is arbitrary. It was submitted that whereas under
clause (a) the cost is calculated with reference to the vehicle/chassis purchased in the financial year in which the tax due by including the elements of taxes and levies in purchase price prevailing on 1st April of the year of purchase, in the case of vehicle/chassis purchased earlier than the year in which the tax is due, it is calculated by adding the element of notional price increase at the rate of fifteen percent per annum compounded annually on the purchase price prevailing on 1st April of the year of purchase of similar type of vehicle which is arbitrary. The submission overlooks the first proviso to rule 42 which gives option to the owner of the vehicle/chassis or any person authorised by him to have the cost of his vehicle assessed "as to be the same as the cost assessed at current price of similar type of vehicle as prevailing on 1 st (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM) (75 of 75) [CW-11858/2019] April of the year in which the tax is due." The owner or the person authorised in that behalf may thus opt to have the cost assessed at current price of vehicle and, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner that the calculation of the cost by adding notional price increase at the rate of fifteen percent per annum, would appear to be misconceived. It is to be kept in mind that the basis of the tax is the load of the vehicle on the road and, therefore, irrespective of the year of manufacture/purchase of the vehicle, the incidence of tax would not differ."
35. Further, this Court notices that under the proviso to the Rule, the owner of the vehicle or chassis has the option to secure the assessment of the cost of the vehicle, in the same manner as the cost is assessed at the current price of a vehicle of the similar type prevailing on 1st April of the year in which the tax is due. This exercise, in the opinion of the Court, as upheld in Federation of Mining Association of Rajasthan's case (supra), minimizes the chances of anomaly in the determination of basis of the cost, which, in turn, determines the tax.
36. In the opinion of the Court, moreover, the exhaustive exercise of cost determination- at current rate and also having regard to the age of the vehicle, eliminates the likely chances of a high value. Thus, the Court discerns no facial perversity or arbitrariness warranting interference. For these reasons, it is held that there is no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the method of valuation of the vehicle, prescribed by Rule 42.
37. In view of the foregoing analysis, it is held that all these writ petitions have to fail. The impugned notification and Rule 42 are held not to be arbitrary or unreasonable; nor are they violative of Article 301 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. All pending applications too are disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR /9 to 384, s/422, 423, c-1 (Downloaded on 29/08/2019 at 08:59:14 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)