Judgment :- Balakrishnan Nair, J. WA No.1724/09 The Writ Petitioner is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed, challenging Ext.P6 order of the Government, withdrawing Ext.P2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal. The brief facts of the case are the following : 2. The appellant is an Association of Petroleum dealers in Thrissur district. It is plying tanker lorries for the transport of petroleum products. How the vehicles, transporting dangerous and hazardous materials should be painted, is provided in Rule 90(1) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, framed by the Central Government, in exercise of its power under S.110(1)(l) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said statutory provision reads as follows : "90. Additional Conditions for national permit : The national permit issued under subsection (12) of Section 88 shall be subject to the following additional conditions namely : (1) The vehicle plying under a national permit shall be painted in dry leaf brown colour with thirty centimetres broad white boarders and the words "National Permit" shall be inscribed on both sides of the vehicle in bold letters within a circle of sixty centimetres diameter. Provided that the body of a tanker carrying dangerous or hazardous goods shall be painted in white colour with a dry leaf brown ribbon of 5 centimetres width around in the middle at the exterior and that the driver's cabin in orange colour." (emphasis supplied) Sub-section (3) of S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act enables the Central Government to relax the rigour of any rule framed under Chapter VII of the Motor Vehicles Act. S.110 comes under Chapter VII. The said sub-section also enables the State Government to exempt any of the rules framed by the Central Government under Chapter VII of the Motor Vehicles Act, subject to any conditions that may be prescribed by the Central Government. S.110 comes under Chapter VII. The said sub-section also enables the State Government to exempt any of the rules framed by the Central Government under Chapter VII of the Motor Vehicles Act, subject to any conditions that may be prescribed by the Central Government. Sub-section (3) of S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows : "Notwithstanding anything contained in this section - (a) the Central Government may exempt any class of motor vehicles from the provisions of this Chapter ; (b) a State Government may exempt any motor vehicle or any class or description of motor vehicles from the rules made under sub-section (1) subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government." The State Government have also framed Rule 304 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, governing painting of vehicles, carrying hazardous and dangerous goods. The said rule reads as follows : "304 - Painting: Every goods vehicles shall be painted in Highway yellow colour either fully or its front and rear portion in highway yellow colour : Provided that the body of a goods carriage used to carry dangerous or hazardous goods shall be painted in white colour with a dry brown leaf ribbon of 5 cm. Width around in the middle at the exterior and that the driver's cabin in orange colour : Provided also that this rule shall not apply to goods vehicles covered by National Permits, Composite Permits and goods vehicles belonging to the Police Department and the goods vehicles temporarily registered under S.43 of the Act." (emphasis supplied) The first proviso to Rule 304 is, in fact, a re-production of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 90 of the Central Rules, which we have already quoted hereinabove. Rule 334 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 empowers the State Government to grant exemption from the operation of any of the provisions of the Rules in Chapter VII of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, including Rule 304. 3. On the motion made by the third respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, the Government issued Ext.P2 order, invoking its power under Rule 334 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, exempting the vehicles of the third respondent Company from the operation of Rule 304. 3. On the motion made by the third respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, the Government issued Ext.P2 order, invoking its power under Rule 334 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, exempting the vehicles of the third respondent Company from the operation of Rule 304. The said order reads as follows : "Rule 304 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 has been amended in the G.O. read above, specifying the colour coding of goods vehicles carrying hazardous goods. In the letter read as second paper above, the Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Kochi has requested the Government to exempt them from complying with the directions contained in the provision incorporated under the rule 304 as per GO read as first paper above, so as to keep distinct colour petroleum tank trucks enabling to maintain the identity of their vehicle throughout the country. Government have examined the request in detail and are pleased to grant exemption under Rule 334 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Kochi in complying with Rule 304 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rule 1994 for the Petroleum tank trucks as a very special case, subject to the condition that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, shall pay the prescribed fee of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred only)." The above quoted order was passed on 10.11.1997. Recently, the Government, taking note of the increase of vehicle population, withdrew Ext.P2 order as per Ext.P6. The relevant portion of Ext.P6 order reads as follows : "As per the reference read as 1st and 2nd paper above, the Government had granted exemption under Rule 334 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, in complying with Rule 304 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules 1994 to the petroleum tank trucks of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and to the Petroleum tank truck having Registration No.KL--3/D-5472, being used for transportation of petroleum products in contract with HPCL and owned by Smt.A.M.Laila, respectively. Rule 90 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 prescribes that the body of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods shall be painted in white colour with dry brown leaf ribbon of 5 cm width around the middle of the exterior and that driver's cabin in orange colour. Rule 304 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 also prescribes the same colour code for goods carriages used for carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. Rule 304 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 also prescribes the same colour code for goods carriages used for carrying dangerous or hazardous goods. The colour code so prescribed is intended for easy identification and better visibility of the vehicles carrying dangerous or hazardous goods to ensure road safety. Taking into account the increase of vehicle population, it is felt that the provisions in Rule 90 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules and Rule 304 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules be enforced strictly for road safety and to review the exemption already sanctioned invoking Rule 334 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. In the above circumstances, Government hereby cancel the orders read as 1st and 2nd papers above." (emphasis supplied) 4. The Writ Petition was filed, challenging Ext.P6. The learned Single Judge took the view that the Government have given good reasons for withdrawing the exemption, in Ext.P6. Further, there is no lack of jurisdiction for the Government to issue an order in the nature of Ext.P6. Therefore, the Writ Petition was dismissed. But, the learned Single Judge granted three months' time to adopt the colour code stipulated in Rule 304 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the above judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Ext.P2 was issued, based on valid grounds. Now, the same has been withdrawn arbitrarily and without notice to the appellant, as per Ext.P6. Therefore, Ext.P6 is liable to be quashed, it is submitted. 6. We also had the benefit of hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioner in WP (C) No.25229/08. The learned counsel also supported the attack against Ext.P6. The learned counsel for the third respondent, though did not file any appeal against the judgment, supported the contentions of the appellant. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that based on relevant considerations and in public interest, Ext.P6 has been issued. 7. We notice that the stipulations regarding painting of goods vehicles, transporting dangerous or hazardous articles are contained in Rule 90(1) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Though the Central Government have the power to relax the rigour of the provisions of the said Rule under S.110(3), we are told that the Central Government have, so far, not issued any notification concerning the same. Though the Central Government have the power to relax the rigour of the provisions of the said Rule under S.110(3), we are told that the Central Government have, so far, not issued any notification concerning the same. Going by S.111 of the Motor Vehicles Act, we notice that the State Government have no power to frame rules regarding matters covered by S.110(1). Rule 90 is admittedly, a rule framed under S.110(1)(l). Relevant portion of S.111 reads as follows : "111. Power of State Government to make rules : (1) A State Government may make rules regulating the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles and trailers with respect to all matters other than the matters specified in sub-section (1) of Section 110." Going by the above provision, Rule 304 has been framed by the State Government without authority. So, in view of the aforementioned statutory provisions, we feel that the State Government have framed a rule, for which it has no power and later, granted exemption from it. Still later, it withdrew the exemption. All these exercises were futile exercises, as all along, Rule 90 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules was alive and kicking. The violation of that rule remained as an offence punishable under S.177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. Now, we will proceed on the footing that Rule 304 has been framed by the State Government validly. The purpose of the rule is to give a fair warning to all persons using the road that a vehicle, carrying dangerous or hazardous materials is plied through the road. So, those who want, can take precautionary measures like steering clear of the said vehicle. The Government granted exemption from the said rule as per Ext.P2, to suit the convenience of the third respondent. Later, the Government realised that public safety is paramount and owing to increase of vehicle population, it is not proper to continue the exemption. Therefore, it decided to withdraw the exemption and issued Ext.P6. Going by the reasons given in Ext.P6, we find it difficult to describe the same as arbitrary or irrational, as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant. The order has been issued on valid grounds. Admittedly, Ext.P6 has been issued, invoking the power of the Government under Rule 334. That means, it is an order within jurisdiction. Going by the reasons given in Ext.P6, we find it difficult to describe the same as arbitrary or irrational, as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant. The order has been issued on valid grounds. Admittedly, Ext.P6 has been issued, invoking the power of the Government under Rule 334. That means, it is an order within jurisdiction. Once an order is found to be within jurisdiction, it is no part of the business of this Court to go further and probe whether the decision is wise or foolish. As long as this Court is not an appellate court, its power is concerned only with the examination of legality of a decision. So, we are not justified in going into the merits of the decision as the Government can, within the four corners of the law, decide wisely or foolishly. 9. The next point to be considered is whether the order is vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice. An authority, having jurisdiction to do something may stray out of jurisdiction, if it fails to observe the principles of natural justice. But, in this case, we notice that the appellant does not have any case on merits. On the admitted facts, since the appellant does not have any case, a remand of the matter will be an empty formality. So, this Court is not justified in issuing a futile writ, by directing the Government to reconsider the matter. In the result, we find no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. WP(C) No.25229/08 10. This is a Writ Petition, filed challenging Ext.P4, canceling the earlier order dated 10.07.2008, sanctioning colour alteration to the tanker lorry of the petitioner. In view of the Judgment in WA No.1724/09, the petitioner has to paint his vehicle as provided in Rule 90(1) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules/Rule 304 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Therefore, the Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.