JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This is a reference made by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Ganjam, recommending to set aside the conviction of the Petitioner P. Sankar Jee and Ch. Dharma Rao, driver and conductor respectively of a motor vehicle O.R.C. 1725. 2. It is the prosecution case that the vehicle in question was being plied from Parlakimedi to Berhampur without D.D.T. being sprayed in the said vehicle as is required under Rule 148A The Orissa motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, (hereinafter described as 'the Rules'). The said rule runs as follows': 148.A. Every public service vehicle shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. For this purpose every such vehicle shall be disinfected with D.D.T. at least once in two months and in particular such D.D.T. spraying shall be done in the presence of the Inspector of Motor Vehicles at the time of every inspection for issue of fitness certificate. It shall be the duty of the Inspector of Motor Vehicle to endorse the compliance of the above provision on each certificate of fitness issued by him in respect of every such vehicle. Both the accused persons admitted their guilt and were convicted. The learned Additional District Magistrate took the view that the word "kept" appearing in Rule 148-A refers only to the owner and as such the driver and the conductor being mere servants of the owner are not keepers of the vehicle and are not liable to be punished for the alleged violation of the said rule. He accordingly recommended to this Court for setting aside the conviction of the driver and the conductor, the Petitioners in this case. 3. There is, however, nothing in the Rule 148A to restrict its application only to the owner and not to any other person who was actually found to have kept the vehicle under his charge. Rule 86(v) expressly lays down that it is one of the duties of the driver of a public service vehicle to maintain the vehicle in clean and sanitary condition and Rule 86(i) lays down that the drivers of public service vehicles shall, as far as may be reasonably possible, having regard to their duties, be responsible for the due observance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is one of the cardinal principles of construction that the rules have to be read together in such a way as C to make them harmonious and workable. In view of the provision in Rule 86(v) the driver is undoubtedly responsible to maintain the vehicle in a clean and sanitary condition. The provision in Rule 148A lays down that the vehicle shall always be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. To disinfect the vehicle with D.D.T. at least once in two months and once particularly in the presence of the inspector of the motor vehicle at the time of every inspection for issue of fitness certificate is one of such modes of keeping the vehicles in a clean and sanitary condition. The Rule contemplates that the vehicle shall be kept clean in a sort of continuous process though it also insists that it must be sprayed with D.D.T. at least once in two months and once at the time of inspection. This, however, does not mean that once a vehicle is sprayed with D.D.T. in the aforesaid manner, there is no further duty to keep the same in a clean and sanitary condition. It can be kept in a clean condition only by the person who is in charge of the vehicle and not the owner. That is why under Rule 86(v) the duty has been expressly entrusted to the driver. In that view of the matter and in view of the admission made by the accused-driver, his conviction must be upheld. 4. It further appears that under Rule 86 the duty of keeping a public service vehicle as in this case clean and in sanitary condition was imposed both on the driver and the conductor, but by notification No. 9 TAR-66/61T-508 dated 5-6-1962 published in Orissa Extraordinary Gazette No. 325/62 the word 'conductor' was omitted. Thus, after this notification the responsibility for keeping a public service vehicle in a clean and in sanitary condition remained solely with the driver. In that view of the matter the conviction of the conductor Ch. Dharma Rao u/s 112 must be set aside and the sentence of fine, it paid, shall be refunded. 5. In view of the aforesaid position of the Rules, I am of the opinion that there is no justification to restrict its application to the owner. In that view of the matter the conviction of the conductor Ch. Dharma Rao u/s 112 must be set aside and the sentence of fine, it paid, shall be refunded. 5. In view of the aforesaid position of the Rules, I am of the opinion that there is no justification to restrict its application to the owner. On the other hand the duty of keeping the vehicle clean has been placed solely on the driver. In that view of the matter the conviction of the driver P. Sankar Jee is maintained and that of the conductor Ch. Dharma Rao is set aside. The fines if paid by him, shall be refunded. The Reference is accordingly rejected.