J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in this batch of petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, have questioned the action of the respondent authority in insisting on compliance of the provisions of Rule 126 of the Central Motor vehicles Rules, 1989 (c. M. C. Rules for short ). Since common questions are involved in all the petitions, upon a joint request, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) THE main question in this group of petitions is the applicability and interpretation of the provisions of Rule 126 of the C. M. V. Rules. In order to appreciate the merits of these petitions, it would be necessary to have a close look into the factual scenario and matrix emerging from the record of the present case. Substantially, common facts may be noted first. The petitioners are dealing in manufacturing or assembling of autorickshaws. Every year, about 1200 autorickshaws (popularly known as "chhakdas") are made or assembled by the petitioners and about 30,000 persons are directly or indirectly employed in such work. Factual Matrix With History : ( 3 ) IN one of the petitions, it is stated that the price at the relevant time came to about Rs. 35,000. 00 per vehicle. Some of the petitioners have been dealing in business of assembling of rickshaws since long. Some of them have also obtained licences under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Some of the petitioners have also relied on the historical background which has led to thriving of business of assembling of rickshaws. According to the petitioners case, in the year 1956, at the time of formation of the erstwhile State of Saurashtra, the manufacturers and assemblers of such vehicles were encouraged by the then Government of the State of Saurashtra and in particular the then Chief Minister Shri Dhebar, to locally manufacture and assemble such autorickshaws. Such vehicles were being sold all over the country. Due to long experience, the vehicles had become very popular because they were not only cheap in price but also economical to run. With the great encouragement from the then Government of Saurashtra and thereafter on formation of the State of Gujarat since 1960 the business of manufacturing and assembling of rickshaws was thriving in various parts of Saurashtra and particularly in the city of Jamnagar etc. With the great encouragement from the then Government of Saurashtra and thereafter on formation of the State of Gujarat since 1960 the business of manufacturing and assembling of rickshaws was thriving in various parts of Saurashtra and particularly in the city of Jamnagar etc. and thereby the State Government as well as Central government earned huge amount by way of direct and indirect taxes. ( 4 ) THE petitioners have also inter alia contended that registration of assembled rickshaws was being done as per the provisions of Sec. 36 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1939 (old Act for short) and the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 (old Rules for short) and checking of designs of locally manufactured trailers was being done as per the provisions of Rule 217 of the old Rules. Thereafter, the Director of transport was submitting applications and copies of documents to the Lalbhai dalpatbhai College of Engineering, Ahmedabad Centre (LDE College-for short) for verification and recommendation of the greatest laden and axle weights in respect of the trailers which are compatible with reasonable safety. After the approval of the design as per the provisions of old Rule 217, assembling of rickshaws was being done as per the old Act and the old Rules. ( 5 ) IN short, the contention of the petitioners is that under the provisions of Sec. 36 of the old Act, the petitioners were required to supply Form f as set forth in the first schedule signed by the maker of the vehicle or an assembler duly authorised by the maker in this behalf stating the greatest laden weight and greatest axle weights. According to the petitioners, under the Old Rule 217, application for approval of a new design of trailer manufactured in India and intended to be used as a Transport vehicle had to be sent to the Director of Transport by the manufacturer and he, in turn, would forward the application to the LDE-College for verification and recommendation of the greatest laden and axle weights in respect of the trailer which is compatible with reasonable safety. The petitioners have, therefore, contended that in accordance with Sec. 36 of the Old Act and Rule 217 of the Old Rules, the manufacturers had to make an appropriate application and the same was approved by the competent authority. The petitioners have, therefore, contended that in accordance with Sec. 36 of the Old Act and Rule 217 of the Old Rules, the manufacturers had to make an appropriate application and the same was approved by the competent authority. The petitioners have also stated that for getting the vehicles registered, the petitioners who are dealing in assembling of the vehicles had to give bill, gate pass for the purpose of central excise and affidavit of the purchaser. On the basis of such documents, the Regional Transport Authorities concerned were registering the vehicles under the provisions of the Old Act and the Old Rules. By the end of June 1989, several such vehicles were duly registered with RTO under the provisions of the Old Act and the Old Rules. ( 6 ) MOREOVER, the office of the RTO, Rajkot had addressed a letter dated 1-3-1961 to one of such manufacturers regarding the f form and informed that for obtaining such form, blue prints and drawings together with the dimensions have to be supplied to the Director of Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute through the director of Transport, Ahmedabad and if the said drawings are passed, they would be issued f form. It was also clarified that in absence of such form f the vehicles would not be registered. The said manufacturer by letter dated 6-3-1961 inter alia informed the Director that they were assembling autorickshaws carrier with a carrying of 600 lbs. since the time of Saurashtra Government. As for the purpose of f form, necessary drawings are required, they were sent for approval. In the said letter, reference was made to the provisions of Rule 217 (1) of the Old Rules. ( 7 ) IT is also the case of the petitioners that they were informed by Victoria jubilee Technical Institute, Bombay, by its letter dated 24-3-1961 that their design was approved and informing the Director about the same. The Director in his turn informed the manufacturers by his order dated 6-4-1961 that the designs submitted by them were approved and that form f would be accepted subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the said letter. The Director in his turn informed the manufacturers by his order dated 6-4-1961 that the designs submitted by them were approved and that form f would be accepted subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the said letter. Thus, it is contended by the petitioners that since then, manufacturers or assemblers of such autorickshaws have been applying for registration of vehicles sold by them and in the said applications, addressed to the RTO, they used to mention engine number, chasis number and also the name of the party to whom vehicle was sold with a request to register such vehicle. Alongwith the sale letter, they also used to submit form f as contemplated by Sec. 36 (1) of the old Act. Manufacturers and assemblers had been following the said procedure and getting vehicles which were manufactured by them, duly registered with RTO in the respective States wherever the vehicles were and where they were required to be registered. The petitioners thus used to get their vehicles assembled by them duly registered by the RTO. ( 8 ) ON or about 15-7-1983, again the Home Department had issued a notification inter alia publishing a draft of Rule 217a under the old Rules. Their Association had made a representation dated 22-6-1989 to the Government. It is, therefore, contended that their vehicles were already approved earlier by the registering authority under the old Act and the manufacturers would have continued to sell the vehicles and would have been entitled to get them registered. However, after the aforesaid notification was published for the purpose of draft Rule 217a, the manufacturers were once again asked to submit design and specifications. The july 1143 petitioners were also informed to comply with the same and vide an order dated 1-11-1983 issued by the Director, approval order was given to one of the petitioners. By the said approval order, the autorickshaws manufactured by the said manufacturers were permitted to have gross laden weight of 900 kgs. ( 9 ) IN the year 1982, the RTO, Jamnagar had refused registration of such vehicles. Therefore, on behalf of the Assemblers Association, a representation was made to the Joint Director who by his letter dated 7-7-1982 had informed the association that pending obtaining approval of the designs and specifications of the vehicles, the same will be registered. ( 9 ) IN the year 1982, the RTO, Jamnagar had refused registration of such vehicles. Therefore, on behalf of the Assemblers Association, a representation was made to the Joint Director who by his letter dated 7-7-1982 had informed the association that pending obtaining approval of the designs and specifications of the vehicles, the same will be registered. Therefore, it is contended that assemblers of such autorickshaws are time and again harassed by the authorities of the department. Firstly, they were called to get the designs approved in 1962 by the LDE College which was done by them. Again, in the year 1982, they were asked to resubmit the designs and again necessary approval was obtained with a view to avoid conflict with the registering authority. Again, the design of the vehicle was got approved in 1984 though it was not required as per the contention of the petitioners. Ultimately, draft Rule 217a of the old Rules was not approved and therefore, it was not brought on the statute book. Refusal to Register on Introduction of New Act : ( 10 ) THE petitioners have also contended that they have been selling their vehicles by issuing necessary documents. Registration certificate was issued in form c. However, later on, the petitioners were informed that such vehicles will not be registered unless they complied with provisions of the new Act and the new rules. According to the case of the petitioners, designs were approved under the provisions of the old Act and the old Rules and, therefore, they were not governed by the new provisions, in that, the case of the petitioners is that in view of the provisions incorporated in Rule 217 of the old Rules, viz. repealing and saving provisions, fresh approval of the designs is not required. Reliance is also placed on the provisions of Rule 166 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (GMV rules-for short ). It is also the case of the petitioners that in view of the provisions of Rule 241 of BMV Rules, approval and certificate obtained under the provisions of the old Rules and the old Act are saved and, therefore also, they are not obliged to undergo the same exercise under the new provisions. ( 11 ) IN short, according to the contention of the petitioners, the autorickshaws manufactured and assembled have been approved and registered. ( 11 ) IN short, according to the contention of the petitioners, the autorickshaws manufactured and assembled have been approved and registered. However, from time to time, they are put to hardships due to unreasonable attitude on the part of the authorities of the Regional Transport department. Thus, it is contended that the provisions under the new Act and the Rules do not in any way affect, cancel or nullify the previous approval of designs under the old Rules. The vehicles which are being assembled or manufactured are the same and there is no change in their designs or specification and, therefore, they are entitled to get their vehicles registered without undergoing the exercise provided under the new provisions. However, the action of the respondent-authorities in refusing to register their such assembled or manufactured vehicles which have already received approval under the old Act, is improper, unjust and illegal. In short, the main contention of the petitioners is that provisions of the new Act and the Rules do not affect and take july 1144 away the previous approval of designs granted under the old provisions. The State of Gujarat has wrongly refused to register vehicles only on the ground that the provisions incorporated in new Rule 126 of CMV Rules, have not been complied with. Such attitude and action is directly under challenge in this group of petitions. The contentions regarding constitutional validity and legality of the new provisions and in particular provisions of Rule 126 of the CMV Rules are not pressed. Therefore, the main question which requires to be adjudicated upon is revolving round the applicability and interpretation of the provisions of the Rule 126 of the CMV Rules. The Objections and Challenges against petitions : ( 12 ) THE respondent-State of Gujarat has seriously and strongly opposed the petitions. They have also filed affidavit-in-reply in Special Civil Application no. 6410 of 1989, whereby, they have inter alia contended that the petitioners are not entitled to relief under Art. 226 as alternative efficacious remedy is available and also that in some of the cases, the petitioners have resorted to civil remedies by filing suits. According to the contentions of the State of Gujarat, the petitioners are assemblers of three-wheeler autorickshaws (load-carrier) and that the said vehicles are covered by the definition of motor vehicle and they are not trailers. According to the contentions of the State of Gujarat, the petitioners are assemblers of three-wheeler autorickshaws (load-carrier) and that the said vehicles are covered by the definition of motor vehicle and they are not trailers. Reliance is also placed on definition of expression rebuilt vehicle under Sec. 2 (25a) of the old Act. It is contended that the petitioners are statutorily liable to undergo the exercise prescribed in the new Act and the new Rules and particularly provisions of Rule 126 of the CMV Rules. The approval required under Rule 217 of BMV Rules contained in the provisions for approval of the design of the locally manufactured trailer which is not applicable in case of motor vehicles. The autorickshaws manufactured or assembled cannot be said to be trailers. They are motor vehicles as defined under the Act. Therefore, the entire defence of the respondent-authority is that the petitioners are required to undergo the exercise prescribed in the new Act and the Rules thereunder. It is also contended that provisions of Rule 126 of CMV Rules are designed to attain safety not only of the drivers, passengers but public at large and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be allowed registration of such vehicles without compliance of provisions of Rule 126 of the CMV Rules. It is also the case of the respondent-authorities that provisions made in Rule 126 is new provision in the new Rules framed under the new Act and it has a definite purpose and policy. It is also the case of the respondentauthority that since there was no similar provision in the old Act and the Rules, the question of saving of previous sanction and approval of the design would not arise at all. Thus, in substance, by challenging the claims made in the petitions, the respondent-authority has contended that compliance of provisions of Rule 126 is statutory and sine qua non for registration of the vehicles. Thus, these claims in the petitions are seriously countered and questioned by the respondents. ( 13 ) THE learned Advocate Mr. B. N. Keshwani has raised several contentions in the course of his submissions before this Court which are supported and adopted by the learned Advocates appearing for the other petitioners. Thus, these claims in the petitions are seriously countered and questioned by the respondents. ( 13 ) THE learned Advocate Mr. B. N. Keshwani has raised several contentions in the course of his submissions before this Court which are supported and adopted by the learned Advocates appearing for the other petitioners. The main contention of the petitioners is that manufacturers or assemblers of three-wheeler autorickshaws manufactured before commencement of the provisions of the new Rules are not obliged to undergo the statutory procedure and exercise prescribed under Rule 126 of the CMV Rules. The question is, therefore, revolving round the interpretation, appreciation and applicability of the provisions of Rule 126 of CMV Rules in light of the other provisions of the new Act and the new Rules. The contention of the petitioners is that registration under the new Act cannot be refused in relation to three-wheeler autorickshaws manufactured or assembled prior to operation of the provision of Rule 126 of the CMV Rules, on the ground that prototype design of such vehicle is not got approved as required under the new Rules. The respondentauthority has refused registration of the vehicles of the petitioners on account of not getting approved the prototype design of such vehicle as required under Rule 126. Thus, the aforesaid main question is in the focus in all these petitions. ( 14 ) IN order to appreciate the main question in focus, it would be necessary first to examine the provisions of Rule 126 of CMV Rules. It prescribes that prototype of every motor vehicle is required to be approved by the authorities prescribed under the said Rules. It is, therefore, necessary to have a close look at rule 126 which reads as under :"on and from the date of commencement of Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993, every manufacturer of motor vehicles other than trailers and semi-trailers shall submit the prototype of the vehicle to be manufactured by him for test by the Vehicle Research and Development Establishment of the ministry of Defence of the Government of India or Automobile Research Association of India, Pune or the Central Machinery Testing and Training Institute, Budani (MP) or the Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, and such other agencies as may be specified by the Central Government for granting a certificate by that agency as to the compliance of provisions of the Act and these Rules. "the insistence by the respondent RTO authority for observance and compliance of the provisions of the aforesaid Rule which is under direct challenge in this group of petitions is required to be examined in light of the special aspects including the effect of such provision of getting prototype of every motor vehicle as introduced for the first time by the new Rules prescribed under the new Act. ( 15 ) THE case of the petitioners is that earlier approvals obtained under the old act are saved and, therefore, registration of such vehicles cannot be refused on the basis of provisions of Rule 126 which also prescribes similar exercise for obtaining prototype of every motor vehicle. Various Submissions in Support of Petitions : ( 16 ) RELIANCE is sought to be placed on the following aspects in support of the contention that new Rule 126 of CMV Rules is not applicable : 1. That Rule 126 is prospective in its application and applies to motor vehicles to be manufactured. 2. That it applies to the manufacturer of motor vehicles and not the assemblers. 3. That the petitioners are assemblers and they have been assembling the loading rickshaws since before the new Act came into force and, therefore, new rule 126 is not applicable. 4. That Central Rule 126a empowers the testing agencies to conduct test to verify whether these vehicles conform to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5. That New Rule 126a does not speak of verifying the vehicles to find out whether the vehicles conform to the prototype design but this Rule empowers testing agencies to verify whether the vehicle conforms to the provisions of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. That Rule 166 of the GMV Rules provides that no locally manufactured trailer shall be registered as a transport vehicle unless the design of such trailer is approved. However, New CMV Rule 126 does not make any such provision of refusing to register the vehicle in absence of approval of the design of the vehicle. 7. Section 58 of MV Act, 1988 provides that a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered unless it carries certificate of fitness. This section does not speak of approval of design. 8. 7. Section 58 of MV Act, 1988 provides that a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered unless it carries certificate of fitness. This section does not speak of approval of design. 8. That new Section 58, new Section 47 and new Rule 126 of CMV Rules do not provide that such vehicles shall not be registered in absence of approval of the prototype design. 9. That the registering authority may refuse to register the vehicle other than the transport vehicle in view of Secs. 45 and 57 (1) of the new Act. Therefore, refusal to register transport vehicle is impermissible. 10. That Sec. 44 of the new Act provides that the registering authority is empowered to compel production of the motor vehicle other than transport vehicle with a view to satisfy that the particulars in the application are true and that the vehicle complies with the requirement of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. 11. So far as the transport vehicle is concerned, the prescribed authority or the authorised testing stations are empowered to issue the certificate of fitness to the effect that vehicle complies with all the requirements of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. 12. That by Gujarat Rule 50, the motor vehicle inspector or the authorised testing stations are authorised to issue, renew or cancel the certificate of fitness and the appeal is also provided under Sec. 57 against such refusal to issue the certificate of fitness. 13. That specific different procedure is prescribed by the Act itself in respect of the transport vehicle and hence the registering authority is not required to compel the production of the transport vehicle under Sec. 44 at the time of registration of the vehicle and the registering authority is also not empowered under new Sec. 45 to refuse to register a transport vehicle. 14. That business of assembling of rickshaws was encouraged by the then State of Saurashtra and after it was merged with the then Bombay State, the prototype design of the transport vehicle loading rickshaw was approved by the Victoria Jubilee technical Institute at Bombay vide its letter dated 24-3-1961. That thereafter, the prototype design was again approved by LDE College, Ahmedabad. That business of assembling of rickshaws was encouraged by the then State of Saurashtra and after it was merged with the then Bombay State, the prototype design of the transport vehicle loading rickshaw was approved by the Victoria Jubilee technical Institute at Bombay vide its letter dated 24-3-1961. That thereafter, the prototype design was again approved by LDE College, Ahmedabad. The petitioners assemble the loading rickshaw of the same design which has been approved on two occasion in past and this approval of prototype design is also saved by new Sec. 217 and therefore, fresh approval for prototype design is not required. The object of introducing new Act and Rules : ( 17 ) THE old Act of 1939 was amended several times to keep it upto date. The need was, however, experienced that the old Act should be amended by taking in account changes in the road transport technology, pattern of passengers and freight movements, development of the road network in the country and particularly the improved techniques in the motor vehicles management. After taking into account various views and suggestions of the Courts made in case laws and the recommendations made by various committees like National Transport Policy committee, National Police Commission, Road Safety Committee, Low Powered two-wheelers Committee, as also the Law Commission and examining different aspects of the road transport mechanism, provisions are incorporated in the new act and the Rules. Thus, there was comprehensive study and review of the old Act to make it relevant to the modern day requirement. Some of the more important modifications made in the new Act are concering and relating to the taking care of various facets and aspects some of which can be highlighted as follows : 1. main concern for road safety standards, and pollution control measures, standards for transportation of hazardous and explosive materials. 2. the fast increasing number of both commercial vehicles and personal vehicles in the country. 3. the need for encouraging adoption of higher technology in automotive sector. 4. the greater flow of passenger and freight with the least impediments so that islands of isolation are not created leading to regional or local imbalances. 5. simplification of procedure and policy liberalisation for private sector operations in the road transport field; and 6. need for effective ways of tracking down traffic offenders. 4. the greater flow of passenger and freight with the least impediments so that islands of isolation are not created leading to regional or local imbalances. 5. simplification of procedure and policy liberalisation for private sector operations in the road transport field; and 6. need for effective ways of tracking down traffic offenders. The provisions of the new Act and the Rules thereunder are aimed at and designed to achieve the following policies and principles : 1. modernisation of administrative machinery for effective control of road transport. 2. rationalisation of certain definitions with additions of certain new definitions of new types of vehicles. 3. stringent provisions and standards for anti-pollution control devices. 4. stricter procedures relating to grant of driving licences and the period of validity thereof. 5. enabling provision for updating the system of registration marks. 6. making provisions and standards for components and parts of motor vehicles. 7. constitution of road safety councils. 8. provision for enhanced compensation in cases of no fault liability and in hit and run motor accidents. 9. provision for payment of compensation by the insurer to the extent of actual liability to the victims of motor accidents irrespective of the class of vehicles. 10. provision for issuing fitness certificates of vehicles also by the authorised testing stations. 11. deterrent punishment in cases of certain offences. 12. administration of the solatium scheme by the General Insurance Corporation. 13. liberalised scheme for grant of stage carriage permits on non-nationalised routes, all India tourist permits and also national permits or goods carriage. ( 18 ) SINCE the question of interpretation and applicability of the provisions of the aforesaid new Rule 126 is raised, it would also be necessary to examine and consider the entire scheme of the relevant provisions in the new Act and the Rules relating to registration and approval of prototype and designs. ( 19 ) NEW Rule 126 provides that every manufacturer of motor vehicles other than trailers and semi-trailers is statutorily obliged to submit prototype of every motor vehicle to be manufactured by him for test by the authorities prescribed therein. Therefore, it becomes clear that every manufacturer of motor vehilces other than trailers and semi-trailers, before embarking upon the manufacturing process, test is statutorily required to be undertaken by submitting prototype of the said vehicle under the said Rule. Therefore, it becomes clear that every manufacturer of motor vehilces other than trailers and semi-trailers, before embarking upon the manufacturing process, test is statutorily required to be undertaken by submitting prototype of the said vehicle under the said Rule. The authorities and the institutions are prescribed for holding and conducting such test as required under this Rule. Rule 126 is provided in Chapter V of the Rules which are pertaining to construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles. Scheme of the Act and the Rules : ( 20 ) IT would be necessary at this stage to refer to the relevant provisions of the old and new Acts and the Rules thereunder. The provisions relating to registration of motor vehicles were provided in Chapter III of the old Act. Sections 22 to 41 in Chapter III were referring and pertaining to registration of motor vehicles. In chapter V of the old Act, in Secs. 69a, 69b and 70, provisions were made in regard to construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles. Chapter VI provided provisions for control of traffic. . ( 21 ) BOMBAY Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 made under the old Act provided statutory provisions for registration of motor vehicles from Rules 44 to 65 of Chapter iv. In the said Rules, in Chapter V, provisions were made for control of transport vehicles in Rules 66 to 144b; whereas, in Rules 145 to 257, special provisions were made in relation to construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles. ( 22 ) A reference at this stage to the provisions under the new Act and Rules made thereunder of the provisions on the aforesaid aspects and provisions under the old Act will be expedient and necessary for appreciation of the controversy between the parties. In the new Act with necessary modifications, provisions are made in Chapter IV in Secs. 39 to 65 in relation to registration of motor vehicles; whereas in Chapter V, general provisions are made for control of transport vehicles in Secs. 66 to 96. For construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles, provisions are made in Secs. 109, 110 and 111 in Chapter VII of the new Act; whereas, in Chapter VIII, provisions are incorporated for control of traffic in Secs. 112 to 138. 66 to 96. For construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles, provisions are made in Secs. 109, 110 and 111 in Chapter VII of the new Act; whereas, in Chapter VIII, provisions are incorporated for control of traffic in Secs. 112 to 138. Thus, out of fourteen Chapters of the new Act, provisions of Chapters iv, V, VII and VIII are material and relevant for the purpose of appreciation of merits of rival versions. ( 23 ) RULES under the new Act are made and they are called Central Motor vehicles Rules, 1989. These Rules are made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers confered by Secs. 12, 27, 64, 88 (14), 110, 137, 164 and 209 read with Sec. 111 of the new Act. There are eight Chapters out of which, Chapters iii, IV and V are important and relevant for the present purpose. In Chapter III, provisions are made in Rules 33 to 81 in relation to registration of motor vehicles; whereas, in Rules 82 to 90 provisions are incorporated in Chapter IV for the purpose of effective control of transport vehicles. Again, important Chapter is chapter V, whereunder, in Rules 91 to 137, important provisions are made in relation to construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles. ( 24 ) SECTION 39 in Chapter IV of the new Act makes a very important provision for the purpose of registration of motor vehicles. It is incumbent and mandatory for getting the motor vehicles registered before making use thereof under Sec. 39. Section 39 statutorily prohibits driving of a motor vehicle in any public place or any other place without registering it under the provisions of Chapter IV. Section 39 corresponds to old Sec. 22 (1), with a change of proviso. In other words, proviso is added to Sec. 39 which was not provided in Sec. 22 of the old Act. Section 39 statutorily prohibits driving of a motor vehicle in any public place or any other place without registering it under the provisions of Chapter IV. Section 39 corresponds to old Sec. 22 (1), with a change of proviso. In other words, proviso is added to Sec. 39 which was not provided in Sec. 22 of the old Act. Section 39 reads as under :"no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner : provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central government. " ( 25 ) NEW Sec. 40 of the new Act lays down that the motor vehicle should be registered by the registering authority in whose jurisdiction the owner of vehicle resides or has a place of business where the motor vehicle is normally kept or used. Section 40 corresponds to old Sec. 23. ( 26 ) SECTION 41 of the new Act relates to procedure for registration of motor vehicle. It clearly provides the manner and mode of effective registration of the motor vehicles. It also lays down that the certificate of registration of motor vehicle, other than a transport vehicle, shall be valid for a period of fifteen days (sic.) and shall be renewable for a period of five years. New Sec. 41 corresponds to old Sec. 24 with some changes. Secs. 42 and 43 are not very relevant for the present purpose. New Sec. 44 empowers the registering authority to require a person applying for registration of motor vehicle or for renewal of registration of the motor vehicle to produce the vehicle for inspection to ensure that the particulars given in the form of application are correct and the vehicles conform to the requirement of this Act. New Sec. 44 corresponds to old Sec. 26. New Sec. 44 corresponds to old Sec. 26. Sec. 45 of the new Act authorises the registering authority to refuse to register any motor vehicle or refuse to renew certificate of registration of motor vehicle in certain cases and requires the registering authority to record in writing reasons for such refusal. Provisions made in Secs. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51 are not relevant for the present purpose. ( 27 ) IMPORTANT provision again is made in new Sec. 52. It has a material bearing on the issues in focus. Therefore, it would be necessary to refer to the said provision in extenso. Section 52 reads as under :"52. Alteration in motor vehicle : (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration, are no longer accurate, unless - (a) he has given notice to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or the place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, of the alteration he proposes to make; and (b) he has obtained the approval of that registering authority to make such alteration : provided that it shall not be necessary to obtain such approval for making any change in the unladen weight of the motor vehicle consequent on the addition or removal of fittings or accessories, if such change does not exceed two per cent of the weight entered in the certificate of registration. (2) Where a registering authority receives a notice under sub-sec. (1), it shall, within seven days of the receipt thereof, communicate, by post, to the owner of the vehicle its approval to the prosposed alteration or otherwise : provided that where the owner of the motor vehicle has not received any such communication within the said period of seven days, the approval of such authority to the proposed alteration shall be deemed to have been given. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1), a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, the owners of not less than ten transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by them so as to replace the engine thereof without the approval of the registering authority. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1), a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, the owners of not less than ten transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by them so as to replace the engine thereof without the approval of the registering authority. (4) Where any alteration has been made in a motor vehicle either with the approval of the registering authority given or deemed to have been given under sub-sec. (2) or by reason of replacement of its engine without such approval under sub-sec. (3), the owner of the vehicle shall, within fourteen days of the making of the alteration, report the alteration to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee in order that particulars of the alteration may be entered therein. (5) A registering authority other than the original registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original registering authority. " ( 28 ) IT becomes very clear from the bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions that for making alteration in the motor vehicle, approval of the relevant authority is necessary and is statutorily prescribed. Thus, it provides for making alteration in the motor vehicle and authorises the registering authority to make necessary alteration in the certificate of registration. ( 29 ) SECTION 53 makes provision for suspension of registration. Section 54 provides for cancellation of registration of motor vehicles if suspension of registration of such motor vehicle continues without interruption for a period of not less than six months. This section is newly added. Section 55 relates to provision for cancellation of registration. It provides and contemplates a situation where certificate of registration is required to be cancelled. Again, an important provision is incorporated in Sec. 56. It is in relation to certificate of fitness for transport vehicle. It has a material bearing on the disputed points. Therefore, it would be expedient to refer to the provisions of Sec. 56 which reads as under :"56. Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles : (1) Subject to the provisions of Secs. It is in relation to certificate of fitness for transport vehicle. It has a material bearing on the disputed points. Therefore, it would be expedient to refer to the provisions of Sec. 56 which reads as under :"56. Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles : (1) Subject to the provisions of Secs. 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Sec. 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorised testing station mentioned in sub-sec. (2), to the effect that the vehicle complies with the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder : provided that where the prescribed authority or the authorised testing station refuses to issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal. (2) The authorised testing station referred to in sub-sec. (1) means a vehicle service station or public or private garage which the State Government, having regard to the experience, training and ability of the operator of such station or garage and the testing equipment and the testing personnel therein, may specify in accordance with the rules made by the Central Government for regulation and control of such stations or garages. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (4), a certificate of fitness shall remain effective for such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government having regard to the objects of this Act. (4) The prescribed authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel a certificate of fitness at any time, if satisfied that the vehicle to which it relates no longer complies with all the requirements of this Act and the Rules made thereunder; and on such cancellation the certificate of registration of the vehicle and any permit granted in respect of the vehicle under Chapter V shall be deemed to be suspended until a new certificate of fitness has been obtained. (5) A certificate of fitness issued under this Act shall, while it remains effective be valid throughout India. (5) A certificate of fitness issued under this Act shall, while it remains effective be valid throughout India. "it can very well be seen Sec. 56 mandates that every transport vehicle shall carry an effective certificate of fitness issued by the prescribed authority or any authorised testing station specified or approved by the State Government. It also empowers the prescribed authority to cancel any such certificate if the vehicle fails to comply with the requirements of this Act. It may be stated that certificate of fitness issued under Sec. 56 is effective throughout India. Sec. 56 corresponds to old Sec. 38 with addition of sub-sec. (2 ). Thus, sub-sec. (2) is newly added. ( 30 ) SECTION 57 refers to appeals. In Sec. 58 special provisions are made in regard to transport vehicles. It is again an important provision. Section 58 corresponds to old Sec. 36. It empowers the Central Government to specify in relation to each make and model of transport vehicle, the maximum safe laden weight of such vehicle and the maximum safe axle weight of each such vehicle. Section 59 makes provision of fixed age limit of motor vehicles. Sections 60 to 64 in Chapter IV of the new Act are not very material for the purpose. Section 64 is newly added section. It empowers the Central Government to make orders in order to give effect to certain provisions of Chapter IV. The aspects and the points for which the Central Government is authorised to make rules are provided in clauses (a) to (p) in Sec. 64 of Chapter IV. Section 65 empowers the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying out effect of the other provisions of this Chapter. This section corresponds to Sec. 41 of the old Act. ( 31 ) AFTER having seen the material provisions in the new Act, it would be expedient to have a reference and a close look into some of the important and relevant provisions made in the Central Rules. In Chapter III, provisions are made for registration of motor vehicles in Rules 33 to 81. In Chapter IV, in Rules 83 to 90, general provisions are made for control of transport vehicles. Relevant rules thereof will be considered hereafter as and when required. In Chapter V, Rules are made for the purpose of construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles in Rules 91 to 137. In Chapter IV, in Rules 83 to 90, general provisions are made for control of transport vehicles. Relevant rules thereof will be considered hereafter as and when required. In Chapter V, Rules are made for the purpose of construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles in Rules 91 to 137. ( 32 ) NEW Rules 92, 93 and 126 are very important for determining the merits of the petitions. Rule 92 prohibits use of any motor vehicle in any public place which does not conform with the requirements of Chapter IV. Rule 92 is reproduced as follows : 92. " (1) No person shall use or cause or allow to be used in any public place any motor vehicle which does not comply with the provisions of this Chapter : provided that nothing contained in this Rule shall apply to vehicles manufactured prior to the coming into force of the Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993. (2) Nothing in this Rule shall apply to a motor vehicle - (a) which has been damaged in an accident or to a vehicle stopped or impeded owing to shortage of fuel or other temporary defects while at the place at which the accident or defect occurred ; (b) which is defective or damaged and is being removed to the nearest place of repair or disposal; or (c) which is more than fifty years old from the date of its registration and is being driven for taking part in a vintage car rally : provided that where a motor vehicle can no longer remain under the effective control of the person driving, the same shall not be used in a public place except by towing. " ( 33 ) RULE 93 makes provision for over-all dimension of motor vehicles. This again is a very important provision in these Rules. What should be the size, type, dimension and various other parts of the motor vehicle are prescribed in this Rule. Rules 94 and 95 provide about size, nature and condition of tyres. Rule 97 provides requirement and conditions for brakes for trailers. Requirements of streering gears and their conditions are prescribed in Rule 98. Rule 99 is not relevant. Rule 100 makes clear provisions about requirement of safety glass of motor vehicles. Rule 101 makes provision for requirements of windscreen wiper. Rule 102 prescribes requirements for singalling devices, direction indicators and stop lights. Requirements of streering gears and their conditions are prescribed in Rule 98. Rule 99 is not relevant. Rule 100 makes clear provisions about requirement of safety glass of motor vehicles. Rule 101 makes provision for requirements of windscreen wiper. Rule 102 prescribes requirements for singalling devices, direction indicators and stop lights. In Rules 103 to 114 very elaborate provisions are made for conditions and safety standards required for motor vehicles. Special provision is made for control and regularisation of emission of smoke, vapour, etc. , from motor vehicle in Rules 115 and 116. Provisions for speed governor are made in Rules 117 and 118. Provision for horns and silencers are made in Rules 119 and 120. Rule 122 is not important for the purpose. Important provisions are made in Rules 123 and 127 for safety devices for drivers, passengers and road users. At this stage, the most relevant and important provision comes into focus which is required to be appreciated and interpreted. It is in Rule 126. It may be recalled that the petitioners have sought rescue by filing the present petitions under the extraordinary provisions of Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the action and insistence of the registering authority to comply with Rule 126 for approval of prototype of vehicle. Thus, the whole controversy revolves round appreciation, interpretation and applicability of these provisions. If the Court finds that provision made in Rule 126 is applicable to the cases of the petitioners on its correct and true assessment and analysis, then in that case, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. If the Court finds that provision incorporated in Rule 126 is not applicable, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Therefore, this Rule 126 assumes wider dimension and significance. ( 34 ) RULE 126 has already been reproduced earlier. It provides for submission of prototype of every motor vehicle to be subject to test before the prescribed statutory authority. This provision is newly added and it has come into operation with effect from 1-4-1991. The Central Rules in the Act came into force with effect from 1-7-1989. The effect of some of the rules including Rule 126 is given later on. Rule 126 was brought into force on 1-4-1991. Rule 126 was amended and the amended part of the rule came into force on 26-3-1993. The Central Rules in the Act came into force with effect from 1-7-1989. The effect of some of the rules including Rule 126 is given later on. Rule 126 was brought into force on 1-4-1991. Rule 126 was amended and the amended part of the rule came into force on 26-3-1993. It is apparent from the unamended and amended provisions of new Rule 126 that requirement to submit prototype of motor vehicle for test and certificate is not necessary in case of trailer and semi-trailer. Thus, only motor vehicles which are trailers and semitrailers are excluded for which statutory, specific and special requirements for submission of prototype of motor vehicles for test. ( 35 ) IT cannot be disputed that provision for submission of prototype of every motor vehicle for test and certificate is introduced for the first time by making a special and specific provision of Rule 126 under the new Act. There is a purpose and policy for making such provision and it is to achieve high standard of safety for users, drivers and passengers. This provision is sought to be avoided by the petitioners mainly on the ground that approval of prototype design under Rule 166 (1) of the Gujarat Rules obtained by the petitioners is sufficient and submission of fresh prototype of autorickshaws is not required to be submitted for test as it is saved by provision of Sec. 217. Firstly, it would be necessary to mention that there is also a dispute about the type and category of autorickshaws assembled or manufactured by the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that the autorickshaw assembled by them is a trailer and not motor vehicle as defined under the Act. The definition of trailer ipso facto goes to show that this submission is totally meritless. The trailer is never mechanically propelled. It is constructed for being drawn by drawing or mechanically propelled vehicle. Definition of motor vehicle in the Act clearly goes to show that it means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use on roads. Admittedly autorickshaws are mechanically propelled vehicles. They are not being driven by drawn vehicles. Therefore, the submission that provision of Rule 126 would not apply to autorickshaws assembled by them on the ground that they are trailers is not only illogical but illegal and unsustainable. Admittedly autorickshaws are mechanically propelled vehicles. They are not being driven by drawn vehicles. Therefore, the submission that provision of Rule 126 would not apply to autorickshaws assembled by them on the ground that they are trailers is not only illogical but illegal and unsustainable. Concept of Prototype : ( 36 ) NEXT, the question would arise as to what is prototype ? Now, the expression prototype is not statutorily defined but it means that a model or standard of vehicles to be manufactured which is required to be submitted to the authotities prescribed for the purpose of test. The underlying purpose is that once the prototype of vehicle to be manufactured by the manufacturer or assembler is approved and certified to be conforming with the requirements of the Act, then, the manufacturer has to follow and manufacture the vehicle as per the approved prototype of the vehicle and design. It is also provided in the new Rules that in case of any alteration, the manufacturer will have to seek approval of the authorities prescribed. For the purpose of obtaining high standard of safety, security and the public protection, new provision is incorporated in Rule 126. ( 37 ) THE contention that this provision is not applicable to the autorickshaws on the ground of they being in the category of trailers is found to be, totally, meritless and misconceived as this provision of Rule 126 makes it very clear that it applies to all motor vehicles except trailers and semi-trailers. Therefore, in case of manufacturing of any motor vehicle, other than trailers and semi-trailers, the test and the requirement provided in Rule 126 will have to be undergone. This rule is sought to be avoided on the ground that the petitioners are not manufacturers. They are assemblers and, therefore, also Rule 126 is inapplicable to autorickshaws assembled by them. This vehement and wholehearted submission appears to be without any heart when one gets into reality and real appreciation of the provisions of Rule 126 on its plain perusal. What is manufacturing and assembling ? ( 38 ) EXPRESSION manufacturer is not statutorily defined. However, it includes assemblers. Interpretation of statutes should be such that advances the cause and purpose of the provision and not to defeat it. What is manufacturing and assembling ? ( 38 ) EXPRESSION manufacturer is not statutorily defined. However, it includes assemblers. Interpretation of statutes should be such that advances the cause and purpose of the provision and not to defeat it. Apart from that, if the assemblers are not included in the definition of manufacturer, in all probability, it may cause great harm to the petitioners in the sense that under the old provision, special provision was made in Sec. 2 (25a) prescribing and providing definition of rebuilt vehicle which is conspicuously absent in the New Act and the Rules dispensing with definition of expression rebuilt vehicle made in Sec. 2 (25a) of the old Act providing that rebuilt vehicle means a motor vehicle rebuilt with an engine and a chasis both of which had not been registered under the old Act. Similar provision is absent in the new Act and the rules. Autorickshaws also obviously would not fall within the definition of trailer or semi-trailer. In this context and in light of the purpose and policy of the provisions of Rule 126, it cannot be said that the expression manufacturer does not include assembler. ( 39 ) EVEN dictionary meaning of the word manufacture is to make. Originally, it was by hand but now done by machine and on large scale. It also means to produce in quantity. Expression manufacture is the very mixture of French and Latin words manu - facture under which manu means by hand and facture means making and jointly, manufacture means to make. Thus, it becomes clear that manufacture means to make something or to produce something. Insofar as the expression assemble is concerned, the dictionary meaning is to put together the parts of. One who makes or assembles or manufactures is a manufacturer. Therefore, taking into consideration the object of Rule 126 and the dictionary meaning in the absence of any statutory definition, it becomes clear that assemblers are included in the expression manufacturer. Therefore, the contention that provisions of Rule 126 are not attracted on the ground that autorickshaws are assembled and not manufactured is also without any substance and is required to be rejected. Autorickshaws assembled by the petitioners are held to be motor vehicle manufactured under the Act. Therefore, the contention that provisions of Rule 126 are not attracted on the ground that autorickshaws are assembled and not manufactured is also without any substance and is required to be rejected. Autorickshaws assembled by the petitioners are held to be motor vehicle manufactured under the Act. The fact that the parts of assembled autorickshaws are not originally manufactured by the petitioners does not make any difference insofar as applicability of provisions of Rule 126 is concerned. The underlying object of Rule 126 read with Sec. 52 of the new Act undoubtedly goes to show that all the manufacturers of motor vehicles are statutorily obliged to first get the prototype of vehicles approved and even in case of any alteration, approval of the registering authority is required. On the conjoint reading of these two provisions in the backdrop of the object and the purpose, it cannot be said that the provision would not apply in case of manufacturing or assembling different parts. What is required to be approved is a motor vehicle made by genuine parts, original parts or assembled cannot be used on road without prototype of design being approved by the statutory authority. Section 52 of the new Act clearly provides for making alteration in motor vehicle and empowers the registering authority to make necessary alteration in the certificate of registration. In short, provision of new Rule 126 cannot be avoided on the ground that motor vehicles are assembled by purchasing parts. Assembling as such is process of manufacturing and, therefore, manufacturers are required to observe and satisfy the conditions incorporated in Rule 126. ( 40 ) IT may also be stated that motor vehicle cannot be used or cannot be allowed to be used without registration. The procedure is prescribed for registration of motor vehicle. In Rule 47, provision is made for making application for registration of motor vehicles. Section 39 in Chapter IV of the new Act provides compulsory registration of motor vehicles. As can be seen from the aforesaid definition of Sec. 39, it prohibits driving of motor vehicles in any public place or any other place without registering it under the provisions of Chapter IV. In Sec. 41, provision is made as to how registration can be made. In Rule 47, a detailed procedure is prescribed for registration. . As can be seen from the aforesaid definition of Sec. 39, it prohibits driving of motor vehicles in any public place or any other place without registering it under the provisions of Chapter IV. In Sec. 41, provision is made as to how registration can be made. In Rule 47, a detailed procedure is prescribed for registration. . ( 41 ) APPLICATION for registration of motor vehicle is required to be made in form 20 to the registering authority within a period of 7 days from the date of taking delivery of such vehicle including period of journey. It is also clearly provided that such application shall be accompanied by documents incorporated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 47. For use and enjoyment of any motor vehicle, registration is made a condition precedent. This is a mandatory provision breach of which is also made an offence. While making application for registration, all requirements as mentioned in Rule 47 are required to be satisfied. Application is required to be accompanied by the following documents : (a) sale certificate in Form 21; (b) valid insurance certificate; (c) copy of the proceedings of the State Transport Authority or Transport commissioner or such other authorities as may be prescribed by the State Government for the purpose of approval of the design in the case of a trailer or semi-trailer; (d) original sale certificate from the authorities concerned in Form 21 in the case of ex-army vehicles; (e) proof of address by way of any one of the documents referred to in Rule 4; (f) temporary registration, if any; (g) road-worthiness certificate in Form 22 from the manufacturers (Form 22a from the body builders); (h) customs clearance certificate in the case of imported vehicles alongwith the licence and bond, if any, and (i) appropriate fee as specified in Rule 81. It can very well be seen from the aforesaid provision that one of the requirements is that alongwith the application, road-worthiness certificate in Form 22 from the manufacturer should be submitted. Application for registration is required to be made by the owners. While submitting such application for registration, one of the important documents required to be submitted is road-worthiness certificate in form 22 from the manufacturer. It would be interesting to refer to the material provisions of statutory Form 22. Application for registration is required to be made by the owners. While submitting such application for registration, one of the important documents required to be submitted is road-worthiness certificate in form 22 from the manufacturer. It would be interesting to refer to the material provisions of statutory Form 22. This form is prescribed in relation to the statutory requirements under Rules 47 (g), 124, 126a and 127. Manufacturer of motor vehicles is bound to give certificate in Form 22 under the aforesaid Rules for the purpose of compliance of the pollution standard, safety standards of components and road-worthiness for the motor vehicles. It is also incumbent upon the manufacturers to certify while complying with the material requirements of Form 22 that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules thereunder are complied with. It is also obligatory for the owner to submit this certificate alongwith the application for registration of motor vehicle. This clearly shows that manufacturer which includes also assembler is bound to comply with the provisions of the new act and the Rules. He has to give certificate in Form 22 about road-worthiness which includes compliance of other provisions made in Rules 47, 115, 124, 126a and 127. Even the sale certificate in Form 21 required to be issued by the manufacturer or dealer, as the case may be, provides compliance of various other provisions of the Act and the Rules thereunder. Thus, it goes to show that the owner will be entitled to registration on fulfilment and compliance of the requirements incorporated in Rule 47. ( 42 ) AGAIN, it may be mentioned that Central Rule 92 prohibits driving of any motor vehicle in any public place without complying with provisions of Chapter v relating to construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles. A conjoint reading of provisions of Central Rule 126, Sec. 30 of the new Act, Rule 47, clearly provides that all manufacturers including assemblers are bound to comply with or follow the provisions of Central Rule 126. ( 43 ) THE interpretation sought to be made by the petitioners, if accepted, will make Rule 126 otiose. Provisions of law must be read as far as possible with a view to see that the object of the statute is advanced. In fact, provisions of Rule 126 are clear and create no ambiguity. It is true that it applies prospectively. Provisions of law must be read as far as possible with a view to see that the object of the statute is advanced. In fact, provisions of Rule 126 are clear and create no ambiguity. It is true that it applies prospectively. It applies to vehicles to be manufactured. However, it cannot be said that approval under the old act and the Rules thereunder was in respect of prototype of motor vehicles as in Rule 126 which is a new provision incorporated. Manufacturer who manufactures after coming into operation of provisions of the Central Rule 126, is bound to comply with the provisions. The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondent-authorities has also pointed out that even in cases of Premier Automobiles and Super-Bajaj, Maharashtra Division, they have also submitted prototype of motor vehicles to be manufactured after the cut off date. Certificates required under the rules for compliance of the rules are issued to them and copies of such certificates are placed on record. Reliance is also placed on these certificates. These certificates are perused. They go to show that the prescribed authority has issued these certificates as required under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The certificates also go to show that they are issued on the basis of prototype of motor vehicles sought to be manufactured. The underlying purpose and object is to achieve and secure effective standards of security and safety and for which special and specific provision is incorporated in new Rule 126 with regard to approval of prototype of motor vehicle. The said submission is like saying that limit of speed, minimum and maximum prescribed under the new Act and the rules will not apply in their case, because they are governed by the old provisions. No any no any qualification nor any embargo is made for the purpose of applicability and enforcement of the provisions of Rule 126. It applies to all manufacturers. Whosoever is a manufacturer or assembler and wants to manufacture after coming into operation of provision of Rule 126 is statutorily bound to follow and comply with the provisions of submission of prototype model of motor vehicle manufactured on or after operation of the provisions of Rule 126. It applies to all manufacturers. Whosoever is a manufacturer or assembler and wants to manufacture after coming into operation of provision of Rule 126 is statutorily bound to follow and comply with the provisions of submission of prototype model of motor vehicle manufactured on or after operation of the provisions of Rule 126. In view of the aforesaid provisions, it becomes clear that unless provisions of Central Rule 126 are satisfied, no vehicle manufactured on or after 1-4-1991 can be registered by any competent authority. The prayer of the petitioners that respondent-authorities should be directed not to insist compliance of the said provisions and to permit owners for registration, is running counter to the spiritual provisions of law. Such a prayer cannot be granted. Since provisions of Rule 126 are applicable and which are mandatory in nature, the petitioners cannot be allowed to contend that their three-wheeler mechanically propelled autorickshaws are not required to be subjected to test for prototype model of motor vehicles. No registration certificate can be granted under Central Rule 47 without compliance of the requirements of the provisions of Rule 47 (1) (a) to (i ). The competent authority can issue certificate of registration under Rule 48 only after verification and satisfication, to the owner of the motor vehicle in Form 23. In case of such certificate of registration for transport vehicle, it is to be handed over to the registered owner only after recording certificate of fitness in prescribed Form 38. ( 44 ) THE contention that there are specific provisions for refusal of registration in case of transport vehicle and therefore, the authority should not insist on compliance of mandatory provisions of Rule 126 is also meritless and hence unsustainable. Such a contention as such defies the logic, rationale and legal policy and purpose incorporated in the provisions of Rule 126. As discussed hereinbefore, it is mandatory and statutory for manufacturer of any motor vehicle to submit prototype model of motor vehicles for the required test and obtain requisite certificate without which no application for registration under Rule 47 can be entertained. It is also found from the aforesaid provisions that there is clear prohibition of driving of any motor vehicle in any public place or any other place (except enclosed factory premises ). Breach of the aforesaid provisions for driving vehicle without registration is also an offence. It is also found from the aforesaid provisions that there is clear prohibition of driving of any motor vehicle in any public place or any other place (except enclosed factory premises ). Breach of the aforesaid provisions for driving vehicle without registration is also an offence. In the circumstances, the above contention raised on behalf of the petitioners must fail. ( 45 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid discussion and the facts and circumstances emerging from the record while viewed in light of the entire scheme of the new act and the rules, this Court has no hesitation in finding that the petitions in which challenge is against implementation of the provisions of Rule 126 by the respondentauthorities must fail, being totally meritless. ( 46 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 11285 of 1993, the relief claimed is that the respondent-authorities should be directed to grant registration to the vehicles viz. , three-wheeler loading autorickshaws as well as passengers three-wheeler autorickshaws only after compliance by the manufacturers or assemblers of the provisions of Rules 47, 115 (2) (c), 126 and 127 of the Central Rules would not now assume any significance or survival value. In the result, the entire batch of petitions is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. At this stage, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that interim relief granted earlier may be ordered to be continued for a period of three months. Interim relief granted shall remain operative for a period of eight weeks from today. There will be no order as to costs. .