K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) ON a prayer made by the petitioners for interim directions, this case was posted before me today for orders. But, as agreed to by both sides this case is treated as listed for final hearing today and is accordingly heard. ( 2 ) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent to forbear from prohibiting the vehicular traffic on the Commercial Street, Bangalore city. ( 3 ) PETITIONER in WP No 11274/ 82 is a company registered under the Companies Act. The company has been incorporated inter alia with the object of promoting the interests of the commercial community of Bangalore and the shop keepers of Commercial Street in particular. Petitioner in WP No. 11275 of 1982 is running business on the commercial Street under the name, and style of 'travellers Corner' dealing in travellers requirements. Petitioner in WP No. 11276 of 1982 is the owner and resident of a building situated on the Commerrial Street. ( 4 ) COMMERCIAL Strqet is a fashionable and busy shopping centre of the city. The width of the road is about 32 feet and the length is about 1373 feet. Prior to 15-3-1982, vehicular traffic was regulated by permitting entry of certain class of vehicles only from the, eastern end or Kamaraj Road. But, on and from' 15-3-1982, the respondent has completely prohibited all vehicular traffic on the said street. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners have approached this Court for appropriate reliers. ( 5 ) THE, petitioners have alleged that either the State Government or the respondent has not so far published a notification in Karnataka Gazette prohibiting the movement of vehicular traffic as it existed prior to 15-3-1982. Among other grounds, the petitioners have urged that without a nptification in the Karnataka Gazette either under s. 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 1939 act) or under S. 3 of the Karnataka traffic Control Act of 1960 (Karnataka Act 18 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as the 1960 Act), the respondent or his subordinates cannot prevent the movement of vehicular traffic on the commercial Street as it existed prior to 15-3-1982. ( 6 ) AT the hearing of this case, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent produced before me a copy of the notification No. 9/81-82 dated 13-3-1982 purported to have been issued by the respondent in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 74 of tho 1939 Act and S. 3 of the 1960 Act. Learned Advocate General very fairly and rightly submitted that that notification has not so far been published in the Karnataka Gazette though the same was to take effect from 15-3-1982 itself. ( 7 ) SRI Mohandas N. Hegde learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the action of the respondent in prohibiting vehicular traffic as it existed prior to 15-3-1982 without the publication of a notification either under S. 74 of the 1939 Act or under S. 3 of the 1960 Act, was wholly unauthorised and illegal. ( 8 ) THE learned Advocate General does not dispute that if there is to be a total prohibition of vehicular traffic on a permanent basis, a notification under s. 74 of the 1939 Act or under S. 3 of the 1960 Act is necessary to be published and such prohibition can only take effect from a date to be specified in, the notification or from the date of the notification which ever is earlier. But, he contends that the notification issued by the Commissioner, though not published in Karnataka Gazette so far, should be read as one made under the proviso to S. 74 of the 1939 Act and the action already taken thereto sustained on that basis. ( 9 ) AN examination of the notification produced before me shows that the same has not been issued under the proviso to S. 74 of the 1939 Act. Apart from this, reading the entire, notification, I find it difficult to hold that the, said notification has been issued by the respondent in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the proviso to S. 74 of the Act. A notification to be issued under the proviso to S. 74 of the 1939 Act intended for special purpose for a limited period not exceeding one month, has necessarily to be issued only under that provision on being satisfied of the circumstances justifying the same. A notification to be issued under the proviso to S. 74 of the 1939 Act intended for special purpose for a limited period not exceeding one month, has necessarily to be issued only under that provision on being satisfied of the circumstances justifying the same. Any notification, issued under the main part of S. 74 of the 1939 Act or under S. 3 of the 1960 Act, cannot be read as one issued under the proviso to S. 74 of the 1939 Act. For those reasons, I cannot persuade my self to agree with the contention of the, learned Advocate General and I reject the same. In this view, the further question whether the notification has been given due publicity as the circumstances permit, as contemplated by the proviso to S. 74 of the 1939 Act does not also arise for determination. ( 10 ) THE power of prohibition of vehicular traffic on any street naturally resulting in serious consequences to the shop keepers, residents and owners of motor vehicles and affecting the rights of citizens to freely move on a street must be exercised strictly in accordance with the provisions made in s. 74 of the 1939 Act and S. 3 of the 1960 Act. Earlier I have found that so far the competent authority has not issued a publication prohibiting the vehicular traffic as it existed prior to 15-3-1982. Even, before publishing a notification in conformity with those sections, it was not open to the respondent to prohibit the movement of vehicular traffic as it existed prior to 15-3-1982. ( 11 ) BEFORE the notification issued by the Commissioner is published, it is not proper for this Court to examine its validity or prohibit him from publishing the same in, accordance with law. I, therefore, decline to examine its validity. ( 12 ) IN the light of my above discussion, I issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent not to prohibit the movement of vehicular traffic on the Commercial Street as it existed prior to 15-3-1982 except in accordance with law. ( 13 ) RULE issued is made absolute. But. in the circumstances of the cases, direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .