Judgment :- 1. There are two petitioners in this O.P. The 1st petitioner is the President of the Ernakulam District Private Bus Operators' Association. He is also the owner of a stage carriage operating within the City of Cochin. The 2nd petitioner is also the owner of a stage carriage running within the City limits of Cochin. The challenge in this case is against Ext.P1 proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 28-1-1986 insisting the installation of Electronic Speed Regulator Device in all private stage carriage vehicles limiting their speed to 50 kilometres per hour. Ext.P1 was passed after issuing notice to all stage carriage permit holders and after hearing them. The petitioners state that it is impracticable to operate the services with the electronic speed control device fitted to the bus which involves needless expenses. This is insisted with regard to buses operating within the City limits alone. This is unauthorised and illegal. S.70 of the Motor Vehicles Act envisages making of rules regulating the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles and traders and it also envisages framing of rules regarding speed governors. Under S.71 of the Act, limits of the speed for motor vehicles can be prescribed. The 8th Schedule to the Act contains the relevant details. In the absence of a proper rule framed in exercise of the powers under S.70 and 71 of the Act, the insistence of an electronic speed regulator device in all private stage carriages, is unauthorised and illegal. The direction given in Ext. P1 is intended to assist the manufacturers of such devices. The petitioners therefore pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 and further restrain the respondents from implementing the directions contained in Ext. P1 in the matter of issue of certificate of fitness. 2. I heard counsel for the petitioners Mr. S. Easwara Iyer and also learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General relied on S.48(3) (xxi) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with R.178 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. Stress was also laid on R.369(a) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, whereby the Regional Transport Authority is authorised to impose speed limits. It was contended that in exercise of the said powers, the Regional Transport Authority will have incidental or ancillary powers to effectuate or to effectively carry out the said powers. Stress was also laid on R.369(a) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, whereby the Regional Transport Authority is authorised to impose speed limits. It was contended that in exercise of the said powers, the Regional Transport Authority will have incidental or ancillary powers to effectuate or to effectively carry out the said powers. So the insistence of electronic speed regulator device is only to carry out or effectuate the imposition of speed limits and so authorised. The 1st respondent after very detailed and mature consideration has held in Ext.P1 that it is mandatory that all city services shall be fitted with electronic speed control devices limiting their speed to SO kilometres per hour. A perusal of Ext.P1 will show that the said order was passed bona fide and in accordance with law and no interference is called for in this O.P. 3. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the view that the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General should be accepted. S.48(3) (xxi) enables the Regional Transport Authority to attach to the permit, conditions. R.178 enables the Regional Transport Authority to attach any one or more of the conditions provided in the Act or prescribed in the Rules. R.369(a) permits the Regional Transport Authority to impose speed limits. The speeds limit imposed should be real, effective and capable of proper supervision and control. It is in order to achieve the above purpose, the Regional Transport Authority has insisted that electronic speed regulator device should be installed in all private stage carriage vehicles. The matter has been considered in detail in Ext. P1. The Regional Transport Authority held as follows: "The R.T.A. has taken cognizance of the fact that there has been a large number of fatal accidents in the city roads and that these accidents have been occurring mainly on account of overspeeding of the city buses. The spate of these fatal accidents have increased very much of late, because the roads now been widened and its surface improved on account of which it is possible for buses be driven quicker than in the past. The spate of these fatal accidents have increased very much of late, because the roads now been widened and its surface improved on account of which it is possible for buses be driven quicker than in the past. Also the number of buses on the roads have increased considerably over the past two three years On account of these reasons and on account of the fact that there is a tendency amongst bus owners to insist that the collection from their buses should be as high as possible as there is a natural tendency towards overspeeding. The R.T.A. is also cognizant of the fact that there has been adverse public criticism both in the Press and in other forums against overspeeding during the last 2/3 years. The RTA. also takes cognizance of the fact that there is a responsibility cast on the R.T.A. which issues permits for the city bus routes and specifies the conditions of these permits to ensure that the operation of these buses do not lead to fatal accidents on the roads. Since the R.T A. is charged with the overall responsibility of specifying the conditions for issuing permits for these buses, the R.T.A. is satisfied that it would be in the larger interest of the public who use the buses that the speed of these buses which are operated under permit from the R.T.A are limited." Proceeding further, the R.T.A. came to the conclusion that mere physical checking by police and officials of the Road Transport Department will not ensure such speed control. It would be essential to control the speed of the vehicle by means other than mere physical checking. For various reasons given in Ext.P1, it came to the conclusion that the "pump locking system" of speed of the city buses cannot be effectively implemented and it is useless and ineffective as a device for the control of the speed of the city buses. It has recorded a clear finding to the effect: "The only system now available which is fool proof is the electronic speed control device which has been tested out in various parts of the country." The advantages of the electronic speed control device have also been adverted to in later paragraphs. It has recorded a clear finding to the effect: "The only system now available which is fool proof is the electronic speed control device which has been tested out in various parts of the country." The advantages of the electronic speed control device have also been adverted to in later paragraphs. It is after a detailed consideration, the R.T.A. has held in Ext.P1 that it will be mandatory that all city service buses shall be fitted with electronic speed control device limiting their speed to 50 kilometres per hour. The above conclusion arrived at by the R.T.A. is based on very cogent and proper reasoning. The R.T.A. has jurisdiction and power to insist on installation of electronic speed regulator in giving effect to the direction regarding speed limits or to effectively implement its decision to impose speed limits. I am satisfied that Ext.P1 order only promotes substantial justice, especially, in the light of the over-speeding noticed in recent years, to prevent a public hazard. There is no miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law. In such circumstances, Ext.P1 will promote only public good and will be conducive to public safety, especially, in an over-crowded City like Cochin. The direction in Ext.P1 has only effectuated a much needed reform in effectively imposing speed limits. No substantial injustice has been caused to the petitioners. In such circumstances, I do not see any warrant to exercise the extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with Ext.P1. 4. The O.P. is without merit. It is dismissed in limine. Dismissed.