Judgment 1. Petitioner has filed The Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, The Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, U.P. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals Rules, 1967, West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. and The Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 2. This petition has been pending at the High Court since 1995. It was filed as a Public Interest Litigation. The matter relates to the procedure before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. For the consideration of claims the attack is basically on sub-clause 3 of sub-rule 2 of Rule 246 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules. 1992. 3. The contention is that it there is a pre-condition to produce a her certificate as a condition precedent to seek compensation then this is virtually an impossibility. It is further submitted that it is understood that the Tribunal adjudging a claim would do so on merits and it is otherwise obliged to deliver compensation to the rightful claimant. 4. By an interim order Quorum: The Hon ble D.P. Wadhwa. C.J. and the Hon ble N. Pandey, J. the operation of certain clauses of Rule 226 and Rule 246 remained stayed. This interim order is reproduced: "We direct that during the pendency of the writ application, operation of Clause (iii) of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 226 and Clauses (iv) & (v) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 246 of the Rules shall remain stayed." 5. This situation cannot continue in permanency when any order passed in the context of the present petition was meant to be an ad interim circumstance. The petitioner points out to rules of other States. At best this is an exercise in comparative law. The High Court cannot frame a legislation and require the State to adopt it. Clearly, the petitioner has a contention to make and it needs to be considered by the State Government. In this regard it will only be appropriate that any comparative exercise which has been collected by the petitioner should be placed before the Transport Secretary, Law Secretary and the Legislative Secretary. 6. State counsel Mr. Clearly, the petitioner has a contention to make and it needs to be considered by the State Government. In this regard it will only be appropriate that any comparative exercise which has been collected by the petitioner should be placed before the Transport Secretary, Law Secretary and the Legislative Secretary. 6. State counsel Mr. V.N. Sinha, G.P.9 suggests that a time period be indicated so that if any changes are to be incorporated in the Rules, it would be done within that period and the rules would see the incorporation and rendering the ad interim order of the Court infructuous. The Court considers this a fair suggestion. In the circumstances the ad interim order of the Court dated 20 October, 1995 would continue for four months and during this period the Transport Secretary, Law Secretary, and the Legislative Secretary may examine similar rules of other State and if any changes are to be incorporated then the necessary incorporation be made to the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992 . 7. With this observation, the petition is consigned.