JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner preferred this writ petition seeking writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the instructions issued by the respondents vide letter dated 3.8.2004. 2. The petitioner being a member of Kishangarh Bar Association is aggrieved by the directions issued h' the MACT, Kishangarh, Ajmer vide his letter dated 3.8.2004 by which the Principal Medical Officer Rajasthan Yagya Narayan Hospital, Kishangarh was directed to form a Board for medical examination of accident cases. 3. The petitioner referred Rule 10.2(3) of the Rajathan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 wherein the certificate is prescribed. In the prescribed proforma, the Medical Officer can give the report of the injuries and therefore, the instructions issued by the Presiding Officer of MACT, Kishangarh is challenged in this writ petition. 4. Notice were issued to the respondent and explanation of the Presiding Officer, MACT Kishangarh was called for. 5. In the reply on behalf of the Presiding Officer, it has been categorically stated that as per Rule 2(i), medical authority means Board constituted by the State Government consisting of three Medical Officer out of which at least one shall be a specialist not below the rank of Associate Professor or junior Specialist in particular field for assessing blindness, low vision, hearing impairment, locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, as the case may be. Even the disability is to be adjudged by the medical authority as defined under Rule 2(m). Disability means a person suffering from not less than forty per cent of any disability as certified by a Medical Authority. Rule 6. of the Rules, 2000 laid down the procedure to issue the disability certificate. A disability certificate shall be issued by the medical authority in Froms II, III, IV and V. The respondent has appended Form II certificate with the reply and every where word medical authority has been mentioned. 6. It appears that the petitioner has not gone through the Rules of 2000 and harping on old proforma which has been appended along with Rule 10.2(3). The present writ petition is filed with ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the Judicial Officer without any cogent reason. Such practice should be deprecated as the petitioner is a practicing lawyer and should be aware of the prevalent rules. Thus, the letter issued by the Presiding Officer is in accordance with the rules.I do not find any illegality in the letter dated. Such practice should be deprecated as the petitioner is a practicing lawyer and should be aware of the prevalent rules. Thus, the letter issued by the Presiding Officer is in accordance with the rules.I do not find any illegality in the letter dated. 3.8.2005 which has been issued in the interest of justice.The writ petition fails and herewith dismissed with cost Rs. 5,000%-. The cost be deposited in the Legal Aid Board.Petition dismissed with Cost. *******