Judgment :- B. Rajendran, J. All these appeals are filed by the various Associations of the Driving School owners against the common order dated 210. 2009 passed by the learned single Judge in WP Nos. 12837 of 2009, 279 of 2008, 36100 of 2007, 36101 of 2007, 2259 of 2008 and 35479 of 2007 respectively. 2. Themain contentions urged by the appellants are, by the Circular dated 31.07.2007 bearing Circular No.43/07, the Special Commissioner and Transport Commissioner has directed all the licensing authorities to take into account the matters enlisted in para No.1. 1 to 1. 48 while considering the application for grant of license for establishing a driving school. The appellants are aggrieved by clause 1. 2 relating to infrastructural amenities to be provided whereby it was directed that the driving schools should have fire-proof pucca building, either owned by the licensee or taken under lease or rent in their name for atleast five years having a minimum space of 1000 sq.ft., so as to have enough space for providing all the requirements namely space for office room measuring 10 X 10, space for lecture hall having an extent of 15 X 10, space for traffic education room to an extent of 15 X10, adequate parking area within the premises of the school to accommodate the vehicles in which instructions are imparted with one motor cycle and one Light Motor Vehicle 350 sq.ft., an additional space at the rate of 560 sq.ft., for heavy passenger motor vehicle and 420 sq.ft., for heavy goods vehicle. Further, it was contemplated that all basic amenities such as drinking water, toilet facilities, rest room etc., should be provided in the driving schools. There are various other conditions imposed in the circular such as furnishing solvency certificate for a sum of not less than Rs.3 lakhs and public roads should not be used for imparting driving training by the training school. According to the appellants, if the circular issued by the second respondent is implemented, then almost all the driving schools across the State have to be closed down, as the conditions stipulated in the circular are onerous. According to the appellants, if the circular issued by the second respondent is implemented, then almost all the driving schools across the State have to be closed down, as the conditions stipulated in the circular are onerous. If the driving schools are required to be established in a land having an extent of 1000 sq.ft., in a city like Chennai, even if the land is owned or taken on rent, it would require atleast Rs.30,000/- to Rs.55,000/-as rent per month with one instructor for every 20 students, which is practically not possible. Furthermore, the direction issued by the Transport Commissioner is invalid as he has no authority to issue such circular and only the Central Government is entitled and empowered to impose any condition or make any Rule or issue direction. The scheme of Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 in respect of matters which require uniformity in standard throughout the country contemplates that it is the Central Government which is empowered to frame Rules and therefore the circular dated 310. 2007 was issued without authority of law. 3. The learned single Judge, considering the argument of counsel on either side and after elaborate discussion, dismissed the writ petitions by a common order dated 210. 2009, resultantly, the present writ appeals have been filed by the appellants. .4. Mr. M.S. Krishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. No. 889 of 2010 mainly contended that a mere perusal of Section 12 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Rule 24 to 32 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules would show that the power with regard to framing of Rules, imposing conditions etc., vest with the Central Government and the State Government or its officers are only authorities for implementation of such Rules framed by the Central Government. Therefore, the State Government has no Rule making power or has not been given any Rule making power to regulate the driving schools. Even if any such Rule is made, it would be wholly out of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act,1988. The circular No.43 of 2007 issued by the second respondent, in his capacity as Transport Commissioner, contains draconian provisions, which would lead to closing down of numerous driving schools across the State. Even if any such Rule is made, it would be wholly out of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act,1988. The circular No.43 of 2007 issued by the second respondent, in his capacity as Transport Commissioner, contains draconian provisions, which would lead to closing down of numerous driving schools across the State. Therefore, the conditions imposed by the Transport Commissioner are not only ultravires his powers, but also violative of the Fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of the State to run driving schools. The learned senior counsel further contended that the field is fully covered by the Central Government and the State authorities are only implementing authorities and therefore, the transport commissioner is not competent to issue the circular, for which he has no authority under law. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, the circular dated 310. 2007 has been issued by the Transport Commissioner without authority of law. 5. Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel for the appellant in W.A. No. 817 of 2010 would specifically contend that the Regional Transport Officers are all authorities under the Central Government with powers to grant licences, which according to the learned senior counsel, is a quasi-judicial function. Therefore, when the instructions are being given by a higher authority namely Transport Commissioner, it will lead to anamalous situation for a superior authority interfering with the powers of the subordinate officers, especially in exercising of his discretion, which is per se illegal. Moreover, it is a field occupied by the Central Government and the State Government has no power to issue any circular, which contravenes the Act and Rules of Central Act. 6. Mr. Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A. No. 633 to 635 of 2010 argued that the Rule relating to fixation of age limit for a vehicle, that too the vehicle should not be 8 years old, is totally contrary to the provisions contemplated under the Central Act. He would specifically argue that in the Central Act, Section 59 (1) empowers the State Government to specify the life of motor vehicles. Under Rule 82 (2) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, for tourist permit taxis, the age is fixed at 8 years and after completion of 8 years, the permit will automatically lapse. He would specifically argue that in the Central Act, Section 59 (1) empowers the State Government to specify the life of motor vehicles. Under Rule 82 (2) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, for tourist permit taxis, the age is fixed at 8 years and after completion of 8 years, the permit will automatically lapse. Similarly, Rule 88 contemplates the age limit in respect of goods carriage other than multi axle vehicles, as 12 years and in respect of multi axle vehicle, it is 15 years for the purpose of grant of national permit. Further, Rule 169 (a) (5) of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules fixes the age of indigenous vehicle as 7 years and imported vehicle as 10 years, if the vehicle is covered by permit. Therefore, when the Central Government has fixed the age of the vehicle specifically as per Rule and left it open in so far as driving schools are concerned, as regards the age of the vehicle, it is not open to the State Government, by way of circular, to fix the age of the vehicle to be used in a driving schools. Therefore, it is contrary to the Central Acts and Rules. .7. Mrs. Radha Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. No. 613 of 2010 submitted that the Central Rule itself are very elaborate giving minute details and therefore, it is not open to the State Government, by way of an administrative instructions, to supplement or give any further direction contrary to the Central Rules without any authority to issue such direction. In fact, the Rules and Regulations as administrative order can neither be supplemented nor substantiated under any provisions. Finally, she would contend that if at all any instructions to be given, it can be by amendment to the Rule and not by way of circular. 8. It was also argued on behalf of the appellants that contrary to the amendment of the Central Act, Rule 24 (3) included certain specific directions and after amendment, those were specifically omitted, which include administrative area, reception area, sanitary block and therefore, whatever is sought to be deleted by way of an amendment from the original Act framed by the Central Government is now sought to be re-introduced in the form of a circular, which is legally impermissible. 9. 9. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents/ Government would point out that Rule 24 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rule deals with driving schools and its establishment in which it is very categorically stated that the licensing authority, for the purpose of Rule 24 to 28, means an officer not below the rank of Regional Transport Officers of Motor Vehicles Department established under Section 213. Under Section 24 (3), the licensing authority, while considering an application for grant of renewal of license under the Rule, has to take into consideration the various specifications given by the Central Government in that regard. In doing so, to have an uniform procedure to be adopted all over the State, the Government has issued the circular dated 310. 2007 under Rule 426. The learned Advocate General would contend that Section 213 would specifically state that the State Government may, for the purpose of carrying out into effect the provisions of this Act, establish Motor Vehicles Department and appoint officers whereof such person as it thinks fit. Section 213 (3) of the Act empowers the State Government to effectively implement the provisions of the Act. The learned Advocate General, tracing the powers of the respondents to Rule 426 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules whereby the Transport Commissioner is shown as the Head of the Transport Department and the other officers of Transport Department as his subordinates, contend that to exercise power and perform the duties assigned to them from time to time under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules framed thereunder and notifications thereof it was specifically stated that such officers shall carry out the instructions and orders issued by the Transport Commissioner from time to time. Therefore, as per the provisions, the Rule itself was formulated by the Tamil Nadu Government and the circular issued by the Transport Commissioner, as head of the Transport Department, is valid. Finally, he would argue that in the impugned circular itself, it is clearly stated that the circular is only issued as a modification issued to the earlier circulars and when the earlier circulars have been acted upon or obeyed by the appellants, they cannot now challenge the impugned circular at all by filing the writ petitions. .10. The main contention of the appellants or their grievance was the imposition of conditions in Clause 1. 3 to 1. 48 in the circular dated 310. .10. The main contention of the appellants or their grievance was the imposition of conditions in Clause 1. 3 to 1. 48 in the circular dated 310. 2007. In fact, during the course of argument, the main contention urged on behalf of the appellants was that there is no power for the government to issue the circular. Even if there is any power, clause 1. 2 specifies minimum space of 1000 sq.ft., and a pucca building in the name of the licencee or leased for a minimum period of five years, which is arbitrary. In respect of clause 1. 3 namely space for office room to an extent of 10 X 10 feet, clause 1. 4 relating to lecture hall measuring 15 X 10 feet, clause 1. 6 relating to space for traffic education room having 15 X 10 feet for conducting driving education and clause 1. 7 relating to parking area and the requirement of 1000 sq.ft., inclusive of parking area would definitely affect the persons from entering into the business of establishing driving school particularly in a city like Chennai where the land value has sky rocketed and is costly to own or even to get a 1000 sq.ft., area on rental basis. 11. The next important clause by which the appellants were worried about was the fixation of the age of the vehicle namely restriction to use a vehicle which is not older than 8 years, which according to the appellants, would affect their legal right to carry on the driving school business. The appellants are also aggrieved by the imposition of condition to furnish solvency certificate to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs. 12. As far as the restriction to use the public road for imparting driving training is concerned, the learned Advocate General, even before the learned single Judge, has given a concession that the driving schools are entitled to use the public road during the learning process after the initial period of training. 13. We have heard the counsel on either side as well as the learned Advocate General at length and perused the material records as well as the order passed by the learned single Judge. 14. The main point argued by appellants is Government has no power to regulate or make any Rules in respect of Driving Schools under the. 13. We have heard the counsel on either side as well as the learned Advocate General at length and perused the material records as well as the order passed by the learned single Judge. 14. The main point argued by appellants is Government has no power to regulate or make any Rules in respect of Driving Schools under the. Before dwelling upon this point in detail, the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules has to be seen which are as follows:- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 "Section 12. Licensing and regulation of schools or establishments for imparting instruction in driving of motor vehicles:- (1) The Central Government may make rules for the purpose of licensing and regulating, by the State Governments, schools or establishments (by whatever name called) for imparting instruction in driving of motor vehicles and matters connected therewith. Licensing and regulation of schools or establishments for imparting instruction in driving of motor vehicles:- (1) The Central Government may make rules for the purpose of licensing and regulating, by the State Governments, schools or establishments (by whatever name called) for imparting instruction in driving of motor vehicles and matters connected therewith. .(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- .(a) licensing of such schools or establishments including grant, renewal and revocation of such licenses: .(b) supervision of such schools or establishments; .(c) the form of application and the form of licence and the particulars to be contained therein .(d) fee to be paid with the application for such licences; .(e) conditions subject to which such licences may be granted .(f) appeals against the orders of refusal to grant or renew such licences and appeals against the orders revoking such licences: .(g) conditions subject to which a person may establish and maintain any such school or establishment for imparting instruction in driving of motor vehicles: .(h) nature, syllabus and duration of course or courses for efficient instruction in driving any motor vehicle; .(i) apparatus and equipments (including motor vehicles fitted with dual control) required for the purpose of imparting such instructions: .(j) suitability of the premises at which such schools or establishments may be established or maintained and facilities to be provided therein; .(k) qualifications, both educational and professional (including experience) which a person imparting instruction in driving a motor vehicle shall possess: .(l) inspection of such schools and establishments (including the services rendered by them and the apparatus, equipments and motor vehicles maintained by them for imparting such instruction); .(m) maintenance of records by such schools or establishments .(n) financial stability of such schools or establishments; .(o) the driving certificates, if any, to be issued by such schools or establishments and the form in which such certificates shall be issued and the requirements to be complied with for the purpose of issuing such certificates; .(p) such other matters as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. .(3) Where the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by rules made in this behalf, exempt generally, either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be specified in the rules, any class of schools or establishments imparting instruction in driving of motor vehicles or matters connected therewith from the provisions of this section. .(4) A school or establishment imparting instruction in driving of motor vehicles or matters connected therewith immediately before the commencement of this Act whether under a licence or not, may continue to impart such instruction without a licence issued under this Act for a period of one month from such commencement, and if it has made an application for such licence under this Act within the said period of one month and such application is in the prescribed fee, till the disposal of such application by the licensing authority. 27. 27. Power of Central Government to make rules.- The Central Government may make rules-- .(a) regarding conditions referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3; .(b) providing for the form in which the application for learners licence may be made, the information it shall contain and the documents to be submitted with the application referred to in sub-section (2) of section 8; .(c) providing for theform of medical certificate referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8: .(d) providing for the particulars for the test referred to in sub-section (5) of section 8: .(e) providing for the form in which the application for driving licence may be made, the information that it shall contain and the documents to be submitted with the application referred to in sub-section .(2) of section 9; .(f) providing for the particulars regarding test of competence to drive, referred to in sub-section (3) of section 9; .(g) specifying the minimum educational qualifications of persons to whom licences to drive transport vehicles may be issued under this Act and the time within which such qualifications are to be acquired by such persons; .(h) providing for the form and contents of the licences, referred to in sub-section (1) of section 10: .(i) providing for the form and contents of the applications referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 11 and documents to be submitted with the application and the fee to be charged .(j) providing for the conditions subject to which section 9 shall apply to an application made under section 11; .(k) providing for the form and contents of the application referred to in sub-section (1) of section 15 and the documents to accompany such application under sub-section (2) of section 15; .(l) providing for the authority to grant licences under sub-section (1) of section 18; (m) specifying the fees payable under sub-section (2) of section 8, sub-section (2) of section 9 and sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 15 for the grant of learners licences, and for the grant and renewal of driving licences and licences for the purpose of regulating the schools or establishments for imparting instructions in driving motor vehicles; .(n) specifying the acts for the purpose of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 19; .(o) specifying the offences under this Act for the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 24; .(p) to provide for all or any of the matters referred to in sub-section (1) of section 26; .(q) any other matter which is, or has to be, prescribed by the Central Government. 28. Power of State Government to make rules:-(1) A State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this chapter other than the matters specified in Section 27. .(2) without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for-- .(a) the appointment, jurisdiction, control and functions of licensing authorities and other prescribed authorities; (b) the conduct and hearing of appeals that may be preferred under this Chapter, the fees to be paid in respect of such appeals and the refund of such fees; provided that no fee so fixed shall exceed twenty-five rupees .(c) the issue of duplicate licences to replace licences lost, destroyed or mutilated, the replacement of photographs which have become obsolete and the fees to be charged therefor; .(d) the badges and uniform to be worn by drivers of transport vehicles and the fees to be paid in respect of badges; .(e) the fee payable for the issue of a medical certificate under sub-section (3) of section 8; .(f) the exemption of prescribed persons, or prescribed classes of persons, from payment of all or any portion of the fees payable under this Chapter .(g) the communication of particulars of licences granted by one licensing authority to other licensing authorities; .(h) theduties, functions and conduct of such persons to whom licences to drive transport vehicles are issued .(i) the exemption of drivers of road-rollers from all or any of the provisions of this Chapter or of the rules made thereunder; .(j) the manner in which the State Register of Driving Licences shall be maintained under section 26; .(k) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed 213. Appointment of motor vehicle officers:- (1)..... (2)..... (3)..... (4)..... Appointment of motor vehicle officers:- (1)..... (2)..... (3)..... (4)..... .(5) In addition to the powers that may be conferred on any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department under sub-section (3), such officer as may be empowered by the State Government in this behalf shall also have the power to-- .(a) make such examinationand inquiry as he thinks fit in order to ascertain whether the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder are being observed; .(c) examine any person and require the production of any register or other document maintained in pursuance of this Act, and take on the spot or otherwise statements of any person which he may consider necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act. .(f) exercise such other powers as may be prescribed. Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 24. Driving schools and establishments:-(1) No person shall establish or maintain any driving school or establishment for imparting instructions for hire or reward in driving motor vehicles without a licence in Form 11 granted by the licensing authority. (2) An application for the grant of renewal of a licence under sub-rule (1) shall be made in Form 12 or Form 13, as the cases may be, to the licensing authority having jurisdiction in the area in which the school or establishment is situated and shall be accompanied by appropriate fee as specified in Rule 32. Explanation.- For the purpose of this Rule and Rules 25 to 28 "licensing authority" means an officer not below the rank of the Regional Transport Officer of the Motor Vehicles Department established under Section 213. .(3) The licensing authority shall, when considering an application for the grant or renewal of a licence under this rule, have regard to the following matters, namely:-- .(i) The applicant and the staff working under him are of good moral character and are qualified to give driving instructions .(ii) The premises where the school or establishment is proposed to be conducted is either owned by the applicant or is taken on lease by him or is hired in his name and it has adequate provision for conducting lecture and demonstration of models besides adequate parking area for the vehicles meant to be used for imparting instructions in driving. Provided that in respect of schools or establishments imparting instructions in driving of motor vehicles or matters connected therewith immediately before the commencement of these rules, the licensing authority may permit the conducting of instruction facilities in the same premises where the school or establishment is housed for a period of six-months, notwithstanding the fact that the premises do not satisfy conditions laid down in this clause. (iii) The financial resources of the proposed school or establishment are sufficient to provide for its continued maintenance .(iv) The applicant owns and maintains a minimum of one motor vehicle each of the type in which instruction is imparted in the school or establishment .(v) The vehicles are available exclusively for purposes of imparting instruction and all such vehicles, except motor cycles, are fitted with dual control facility to enable the instructor to control or stop the vehicle. Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules 169 A. Guiding principles for the grant of tourist Maxi Cab and motor cab permits.--- ...... .(7) The Regional Transport Authority or its Secretary, if it decides to grant the permit for a tourist maxi cab or tourist motor cab shall attach to the permit the following conditions and also such other conditions as may be applicable to contract carriages as it deems fit-- .(i) that the permit shall cease to be effective on the date on which the vehicle becomes seven years old in the case of indigenous vehicle and ten years old in the case of imported vehicle. "426. Transport Department Officers. "426. Transport Department Officers. -For the purpose of Section 213, the Transport Commissioner shall be the Head of the Transport Department, the Joint Transport Commissioner, the Deputy Transport Commissioners and Secretary and Assistant Secretaries to the State Transport Authority, the Departmental Representative, the Statistical Officer, the Assistant Engineer (Motor Vehicles), the Senior Accounts Officer and Junior Accounts Officers, the Regional Transport Authorities and their Secretaries, the Regional Transport Officers, the Officers functioning as licensing and Registering Authorities, the Motor Vehicles Inspectors, Grade I and Grade II, Motor Vehicles Inspectors (Non-Technical), Personal Assistant to State Transport Authority and Personal Assistant to Regional Transport Officers and Superintendents and all other officers who may, from time to time be appointed for the purpose of the said section shall be officers of the Transport Department and shall exercise the powers and perform the duties assigned to them from time to time under the Act and the rules made and the notifications issued thereunder. They shall carry out the instruction and orders issued by the Transport Commissioner from time to time." 15. From the relevant Sections and Rules, as mentioned above, it is clear that Sections 12, 27 and 28 under Chapter II of Motor Vehicles Act, deals with the power of the State Government as well as Central Government and the regulations made necessary for the establishment of driving schools. In fact, all the three sections of the Motor Vehicles Act under Chapter II specifically deals with licensing of drivers of motor vehicles in which Section 3 to 11 and Section 13 to 26 deals specifically with the driving licenses. Whereas, Section 12 alone deals with the establishment and regulation of driving schools. 16. Section 27 confers Rule making power for the Central Government. Section 27 is an enabling provisions to make Rules by the Central Government which specifically states that in regard to which the Rules can be made. Section 28 gives the power to the State Government to frame Rules. It is worthwhile to mention here that Section 28 (1) very clearly states that the State Government may, for the purpose of carrying out into effect the provisions of this Chapter other than matters specified in Section 27. Therefore, as per Section 28, any Rule which the State Government can make should not be a Rule, as enumerated under Section 27. Therefore, as per Section 28, any Rule which the State Government can make should not be a Rule, as enumerated under Section 27. When we see Section 27, it is clear that all other sections are mentioned excepting Section 12. Therefore, a cursory reading of Sections 27 and 28 jointly would give us a clear impression that the State Government has got power to make Rules in respect of matters pertaining to Section 12, meaning thereby, the State Government has got powers to make Rules in so far as it relates to the regulation of driving schools, especially driving schools which are imparting instructions in driving motor vehicles. That is the reason why all those Sections are contained in one and the same Chapter II. 17. When we consider Section 12 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the section itself would start with the words "The Central Government may make rules for the purpose of licensing and regulating, by the State Governments, schools or establishments (by whatever name called) for imparting instruction in driving of motor vehicles and matters connected therewith. Therefore, it is clear from this Section that it empowers the Central Government to make Rules for the purpose of licensing and regulating, by the State Governments the school or establishment for imparting instructions in driving motor vehicles. In fact, Section 12 also deals with what are the factors for which Rules have been provided for, which are enumerated from (a) to (p) of Sub-section 2. Based on Section 12, the appellants would contend that the Central Government has specifically stated that under various provisions where Rules have been framed including conditions subject to which a person may establish and maintain any such school or establishment for imparting instruction in driving of motor vehicles; apparatus and equipments (including motor vehicles fitted with dual control) required for the purpose of imparting such instructions: suitability of the premises at which such schools or establishments may be established or maintained and facilities to be provided therein; and financial stability of such schools or establishments. Therefore, according to the appellants, when these are specified, the State Government cannot intrude into such Rules made by the Central Government. Therefore, according to the appellants, when these are specified, the State Government cannot intrude into such Rules made by the Central Government. According to the appellants, the present directions of the State Government, say for example seeking the owners of the driving schools to have 1000 sq.ft., of space, inclusive of parking space, is definitely intruding into the effective directions issued in Section 12 (j) by the Central Government relating to suitability of the premises. Therefore, there cannot be any instructions by the State Government at all contravening the instructions already given by the Central Government by way of a circular. 18. It is pertinent to point out here that clause (p) of Section 12 deals with such other matters as may be prescribed or necessary to carry out into effect for the purpose of this Section which empowers the State Government to deal with other matters in this regard. In this background, if we see Sections 27 and 28, which confers rule making powers, the Central Government are empowered to make rules in regard to sub-section (2) of section 3, Sub-sections (2) (3) and (5) of section 8, subsection (2) (3) of Section 9, sub-section (1) of Section 10 sub-section (1) of section 11, sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 15 and sub-section (1) of section 18, sub-section (1) of section 19, sub-section (2) of section 24, sub- section (1) of section 26, but it specifically excluded section 12, which would only denote that under section 28, power of the State Government to make Rule in respect of section 12 is nowhere prohibited. 19. Now, we take the impugned circular for our consideration. At the outset, it was a circular issued by the Special Commissioner and Transport Commissioner, Chepauk, Chennai to all the Joint Transport Commissioners, Zonal Deputy Transport Commissioners, Regional Transport Commissioners and all Motor Vehicle Assistants/Inspectors. The subject is mentioned as "improving quality of traffic to mould skilful riders and revised guidelines issued regarding. In the reference column of the circular, the earlier circulars namely Circular Nos. 09/93 dated 02.02.1993, 50/93 dated 15.07.1993, 4/95 dated 10.01.1995, 5/95 dated 10.01.1995, 50/02 dated 111. 2002, 21/03 dated 13.05.2005 and 10/07 dated 14.03.2007 have been referred to. The subject is mentioned as "improving quality of traffic to mould skilful riders and revised guidelines issued regarding. In the reference column of the circular, the earlier circulars namely Circular Nos. 09/93 dated 02.02.1993, 50/93 dated 15.07.1993, 4/95 dated 10.01.1995, 5/95 dated 10.01.1995, 50/02 dated 111. 2002, 21/03 dated 13.05.2005 and 10/07 dated 14.03.2007 have been referred to. In the preamble portion of the circular, it was stated that driving schools are regulated under the statutory provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 as also under various administrative instructions issued thereunder from time to time. It was also stated that the Central Government has framed Rules with regard to establishment of driving Schools and the requirement to be specified for every driving school to get a licence from the concerned licensing authority interalia casting a duty on the driving schools to produce quality drivers, which is necessary to prevent accidents. The circular also points out that there are about 1650 traffic schools presently available in the State of Tamil Nadu and the existing traffic schools are either grossly ill-equipped or lacking adequate infrastructure, needed skill, etc., for the job undertaken by them. It was also pointed out that there are average increase of 4% every year in the road accidents and majority of accidents have occurred due to the fault or negligence of the drivers. To substantiate the same, a date was also given in the circular which reads as follows:- S.No Year Total No.of Accidents Total No.of accidents occurred due to fault of drivers Percentage 1 2000 48923 47081 1 2 2001 51978 50314 1 3 2002 53503 52384 1 4 2004 52508 50837 1 5 2005 53878 51756 1 6 2006 55145 51938 1 20. In the circular dated 310. 2007, it was further stated that many of the traffic schools either do not follow various prescribed statutory provisions and stipulations but flout the same. Therefore, it was high time that omission and commission are put to an end and offenders are dealt with sternly. In the circular dated 310. 2007, it was further stated that many of the traffic schools either do not follow various prescribed statutory provisions and stipulations but flout the same. Therefore, it was high time that omission and commission are put to an end and offenders are dealt with sternly. It was also stated therein that "Also, it is therefore, imperative on the part of the department to critically review the existing arrangements and bring in place, the required modifications in the stipulations and guideline so as to have an effective control over the driving schools with the sole objective of producing quality and skilful drivers considering transport, traffic, vehicular strength, rights of various road users and all the aspects connected with road safety." Therefore, taking into the avowed object to produce skilful drivers, at the same time to have control over the driving schools, in modification of the earlier circulars dated 02.02.1993, 15.07.1993, 10.01.1995, 10.01.1995, 111. 2002, 13.05.2005 and 14.03.2007, wherein instructions were issued regarding the amenities, equipments etc., the present modification has been issued. Therefore, the circular dated 310. 2007 is only in the nature of a modification of the earlier circulars, which hitherto had been accepted, acted upon and obeyed by the very same appellants. They have not challenged the earlier circulars. Since the present circular dated 310. 2007, which was challenged before the learned single Judge, is only issued in modification of the earlier circulars, first and foremost, the appellants cannot challenge the competence/authority of Transport Commissioner to issue such circular. 21. In this context, it is to be pointed out that one of the appellants herein had produced a copy of the order passed by this Court in WP No. 2162 of 1995, wherein the petitioner therein (appellant before us in W.A. No. 635 of 2010) had accepted the circular No.5 of 1995 dated 10.05.1995 which prescribe that there should be a minimum of 150 sq.ft., of area out of which one of the sides should be not less than 10 feet as a criteria. In the said writ petition, it was specifically pleaded that the said circular dated 10.05.1995 issued by the Transport Commissioner will bind the subordinate officers namely licensing authority and they have to obey and follow the diktat of the Transport Commissioner. In the said writ petition, it was specifically pleaded that the said circular dated 10.05.1995 issued by the Transport Commissioner will bind the subordinate officers namely licensing authority and they have to obey and follow the diktat of the Transport Commissioner. In that writ petition, contrary to the said circular dated 10.05.1995, the Regional Transport Officer has sought for more area and therefore, this Court quashed the proceedings of the Regional Transport Officer as it is in contravention of the circular dated 10.05.1995 issued by the Transport Commissioner. In fact, that was the prayer sought for by the petitioner therein (appellant before us in W.A. No. 635 of 2010) that means, the appellant association has literally accepted the powers vested with the State Government in regulating the driving schools. The petitioner therein went to the extent of challenging the order passed by the Regional Transport Officer as it was not in consonance with the circular dated 10.05.1995. In fact the said circular dated 10.05.1995 is also referred to in the circular dated 310. 2007, which was impugned before the learned single Judge, in reference No.4. After 15 years, the State Government has thought it fit that it is not 150 square feet and it may be 1000 sq.ft., and even that 1000 square feet was bifurcated into five areas namely space for office room, lecture hall, demonstration hall, traffic education room and parking area by which the earlier circulars have been modified by giving detailed areas, which are required for upgrading the driving schools and for better implementation of the Central Act. Therefore, as stated above, the circular dated 310. 2007 issued by the Transport Commissioner is only issued as a modification of the earlier circulars, which was exactly in respect of the very same space requirement. 22. Inthe circular dated 310. 2007, which was impugned before the learned single Judge, in clause 2. 2, reference has been made to the earlier circular No.4 of 1995 as amended in circular No.5 of 1995 dated 10.01.1995. The amendment has necessiated as the earlier circular does not reflect the nature of irregularities and punitive measures. Therefore, a modification came to be made and it was given as an annexure B to the circular dated 10.01.1995. Furthermore, when we look into clause 3 of the circular dated 310. The amendment has necessiated as the earlier circular does not reflect the nature of irregularities and punitive measures. Therefore, a modification came to be made and it was given as an annexure B to the circular dated 10.01.1995. Furthermore, when we look into clause 3 of the circular dated 310. 2007, it is very clearly stated that in order to improve the quality of driving schools and to produce skilful drivers, all the licensing authorities are directed to remember the further instructions given therein while considering an application for grant of licence to establish driving school. It was also clearly stated that though Rule 24 (3) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 are wider enough to keep the standards of the driving schools, to have uniform standard of application, a couple of clarifications are required to be issued in clear terms so as to ensure that adequate regulatory measures are taken by the licensing authorities so as to get the desired results in order to improve the quality of the driving schools. In clause 5.1 of the circular dated 310. 2007, it was stated that "Every licensing authority and the Inspecting officer shall ensure the compliance by the licensee of the statutory provisions and regulatory measures as detailed above. Besides, they should also concentrate on the following points to have an effective enforcement of the provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989." Finally, in clause 7 and 8, it was stated that "The regulatory measures specified above are applicable only for the grant of establishment of new driving schools." "The existing driving schools shall be directed to have the facilities mentioned in para numbers 1. 1 to 1. 48 of this circular within a period of six months from the date of issue of this circular. It is the responsibility of the Licensing Authorities to implement this within the above time frame." By virtue of this circular, it was made clear that these instructions are issued in modification of the earlier circulars and the instructions given therein are only intended to have effective regulatory measures for the enforcement of the provisions of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The instructions contained in the circular dated 310. 2007 are, in our opinion, in consonance with the Central Motor Vehicle Act and Rules. 23. The instructions contained in the circular dated 310. 2007 are, in our opinion, in consonance with the Central Motor Vehicle Act and Rules. 23. When we read the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition No. 2259 of 2008 against which W.A. No. 817 of 2010 has been filed, the petitioner therein namely Coimbatore Driving School Owners Welfare Association, represented by its Secretary has stated in para-7 as follows:- "7. .....Mere perusal of Section 12 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 24 to 32 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules would show the entire power with regard to the framing of rules, imposing of conditions etc., rest with the Central Government and the State Government and its authorities are only authorities for implementation of the rules. The State Government has not been given any rule making power to regulate the driving schools and if it makes any such rules, it would be clearly ultra vires the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules made thereunder. 24. It is also seen from the affidavit filed by the appellant in W.A. No. 187 that the State Government and its authorities are only authorities for implementation of the rules, but it was contended that the State Government has no rule making power and if any Rule is made, it is violative of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. This is totally not in consonance with Section 28 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which empowers the State Government to make rules in respect of matters not stated under Section 27 of the Act. 25. Similarly, in para No.8 of the very same affidavit, it was contended by the appellant in WA No. 817 of 2010 that "hitherto the driving schools were required to maintain a space of 150 sq.ft., for the purpose of running of an office and give a solvency certificate to the value of Rs.20,000/-. 25. Similarly, in para No.8 of the very same affidavit, it was contended by the appellant in WA No. 817 of 2010 that "hitherto the driving schools were required to maintain a space of 150 sq.ft., for the purpose of running of an office and give a solvency certificate to the value of Rs.20,000/-. It is submitted that though the rules do not provide to enable the State Government to impose any such condition, in good faith, the driving schools were complying with the same." Therefore, even in the affidavit filed before the learned single Judge, it was admitted that hitherto, they have been accepting the circular issued by the Transport Commissioner and following the same, but when the same circular has now been issued with certain modification requiring the driving schools to make available 1000 sq.ft., of land inclusive of car parking, they were aggrieved and filed the writ petitions before the learned single Judge challenging the circular. 26. In the grounds of writ appeal, it was contended that the field is completely covered by Section 12 of the Motor Vehicle Act and Central Motor Vehicle Rules, therefore, the State Authorities, who are only implementing authorities, have absolutely no competence to issue the circular dated 310. 2007. In this connection, Section 213 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which comes under Chapter 15 Miscellaneous, specifically provides that the State Government, for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act, establish Motor Vehicle Department and appoint officers thereof such persons as it thinks fit. Sub-section (3) of Section 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 specifically provides that the State Government may make rules to regulate the discharge by officers of the Motor Vehicles Department of their functions, the powers to be exercised by them and the conditions governing the exercising of such power. Therefore, the State Government at the time of establishing a motor vehicles department, for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, appoint officers and to regulate the discharge by officers of their functions, the powers to be exercised and the conditions that would govern the exercise of such powers by them. 27. Therefore, the State Government at the time of establishing a motor vehicles department, for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, appoint officers and to regulate the discharge by officers of their functions, the powers to be exercised and the conditions that would govern the exercise of such powers by them. 27. When we take into consideration Rule 426 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, it is categorically stated therein that for the purpose of Section 213, the Transport Commissioner shall be the Head of the Transport Department and the other subordinate officers shall be officers of the transport department for the purpose of the said Section and shall exercise the powers and perform the duties assigned to them from time to time under the Act and the rules made and the notifications issued thereunder. It is specifically stated therein that "they shall carry out the instruction and orders issued by the Transport Commissioner from time to time." Therefore, the Transport Commissioner, who is the higher authority, heading the Transport Department, has got the power and right to issue necessary instructions to the subordinate officers, who are all officers appointed under the Act to implement the Central Act. The subordinate officers will be governed by the notifications and circulars that may be issued by the transport Commissioner from time to time. As stated supra, hitherto, circulars have been issued, which were followed and accepted by the appellants herein and when a modified circular dated 310. 2007 was issued requiring the driving schools to make available 1000 sq.ft., of land, they were aggrieved. The earlier circulars issued by the Transport Commissioners, from time to time, imposing various conditions, have been duly followed by the subordinate officers, including the licensing authority. It is also pertinent to point out that the circular dated 310. 2007 contains only guidelines for the purpose of proper implementation of the Central Act and Rules and also with an intention to get quality drivers and to enhance the functioning of the driving schools. Therefore, the argument of the appellants, that under Rule 24 (3) and (4) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, which gives minute details even as regards fixing of black board, traffic signs chart etc., it is not open to the Transport Commissioner to impose the condition in the circular dated 310. Therefore, the argument of the appellants, that under Rule 24 (3) and (4) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, which gives minute details even as regards fixing of black board, traffic signs chart etc., it is not open to the Transport Commissioner to impose the condition in the circular dated 310. 2007 to own or take on lease 1000 sq.ft., of land for a minimum period of five years, is incorrect and cannot be acceptable. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge the present conditions imposed in the circular dated 310. 2007 are only indication of what may be required, at the same time, there are certain discretion, which have been left to the authorities that the premises where the driving school is located has got adequate space for conducting lecture and demonstration, besides parking area. Since the Central Act did not specify the exact requirement, the Government thought it fit to have an uniform procedure to be adopted all over the State and issued the circular dated 310. 2007 whereby to ensure that there cannot be any discrimination in respect of the various driving schools situate in all parts of the State and also to ensure that various conditions prescribed through out the State are in consonance with the earlier circulars and therefore the modifications were deemed necessary. We do not find any reasons to interfere with the said findings of the learned single Judge. In this context, take for example, under Sub-Rule (2) and (3) of Rule 24 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, the licensing authority has to ensure that the premises where the driving school is proposed to be located is either owned or taken on lease by applicant and it has adequate provisions for conducting lecture and demonstration besides parking area. In the circular, it is now defined or explained that a minimum space of 150 square feet area is to be made available for lecture hall, another 150 square feet for demonstration hall, another 150 to be earmarked for office room or reception area besides ensuring that there should be sufficient space for parking cars. In this connection, it may not be out of place to mention that most of the driving schools in the State of Tamil Nadu do not have any parking area at all and they park their vehicles outside their premises haphazardly. In this connection, it may not be out of place to mention that most of the driving schools in the State of Tamil Nadu do not have any parking area at all and they park their vehicles outside their premises haphazardly. Therefore, there is nothing wrong for the Commissioner to issue the circular dated 310. 2007 streamlining the procedures for establishing and conducting of the driving schools by specifying or earmarking the exact area to be made available for every driving schools. Merely because 1000 sq.ft of land has been prescribed, which may be a bit of strain for the driving school owners to be made available at a City like Chennai or other cities in the State of Tamil Nadu, that by itself would not take away the right of the Commissioner to expect the driving schools to be in conformity with the requirements for establishing such driving schools and to ensure that a uniform procedure is being adopted throughout the State. In fact, specifying the exact area to be made available, which is already stipulated in Rule 24 (2) (3) of the Central Motor Rules, the circular was issued in consonance and in conformity with Rule 24. 28. As stated supra, the State Government is the implementing authority of the Central Government Act and as implementing authority, the Transport Commissioner is the authority empowered under the Act to give necessary instructions for the purpose of implementing the Central Act and Rules. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, adequate provisions mentioned in Rule 24 (2) and (3) has to be made available by the licensing authority and in order to maintain an uniform procedure and standard all over the State, the Transport Commissioner has rightly issued the circular dated 310. 2007 modifying the instructions thereby, the licensing authority is given the necessary input and instructions by the Transport Commissioner and it does not mean that the power of the licensing authority is taken away nor the power has been in any way stultified or curtailed by the instructions given by the Transport Commissioner. .29. The next important submission made on behalf of the appellants relate to fixation of the age limit for the vehicle to be used in the driving school. In this connection, Mr. Gopalakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A. Nos. .29. The next important submission made on behalf of the appellants relate to fixation of the age limit for the vehicle to be used in the driving school. In this connection, Mr. Gopalakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A. Nos. 633 to 635 of 2010 pointed out Rule 82 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules and argued that it specifically earmarked the age of the vehicle in so far as tourist permit vehicles are concerned by stating that the validity for the permit will be only for 9 years in the case of motor cab and 8 years in the case of other than motor cab. It was also made clear that the period of 9 years and 8 years commenced from the date of initial registration of the motor vehicles, meaning thereby that no motor vehicle can be used or utilised beyond the period of 8 or 9 years in those categories for tourist permit vehicle. Similarly, Rule 88 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules would specify that no national permit shall be granted in respect of goods carriage other than mutiaxle vehicle, which ismore than 12 years old at any point of time. He also referred to Rule 169 A (5) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules which stipulates that at no point of time, the vehicle covered by the permit shall not be more than seven years old in the case of indigenous vehicle and not more than 10 years old in the case of imported vehicle. He also referred to Section 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereby power is given to the Central Government in regard to fixation of age of the vehicle having regard to public safety, convenience and object of the Act by notification in the official gazette specifying the life of motor vehicle reckoned from the date of its manufacture, after the expiry of which, the motor vehicle shall not be deemed to comply with the requirements of this Act. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Central Government alone has got the power to regulate the use of the vehicles as regards the age, but at the same time, proviso to the section would says that the Central Government, may specify different ages for different classes or different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Central Government alone has got the power to regulate the use of the vehicles as regards the age, but at the same time, proviso to the section would says that the Central Government, may specify different ages for different classes or different types of motor vehicles. The crux of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants was that when different age limit were fixed by the Central Government in Central Motor Vehicle Rules as well as Tamil Nadu State Motor Vehicle Rules and nothing is specified in so far as age limit of the vehicle belonging to the driving school, the State Government, by way of circular, cannot introduce new age limit of the vehicle for the use of the driving school. He also contended that for the purpose of running driving school, necessarily, old vehicles alone can be utilised as it tends to get many dents and cracks during the course of the learning process. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. Nos. 633 to 635 of 2010 submitted that the circular issued by the Transport Commissioner, which was impugned in the writ petition, if it was given effect, would result in serious repercussions in the very existence of the driving schools. 30. The learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents countered this argument by stating that the object of the circular itself is to produce skillful drivers. If they are taught driving with very old vehicles, which are not in tune with the present day system or mechanism or totally old system, when they are pressed into service to drive the vehicle, they may not be able to tackle the vehicle in the public road effectively and therefore, the very object of the circular is based on the public safety, otherwise, public safety will be at peril. .31. We find force in the argument of the learned Advocate General. .31. We find force in the argument of the learned Advocate General. Take for an example if the driving schools imparts training to a person in driving with old model vehicle, say Standard Car or Fiat Car, which are no longer in existence, or even a very old Ambassador Car, with a hand shift gear or still older model of vehicle, the person, who was imparted training with driving in such vehicle would be totally not conversant with the different kinds of vehicles which are produced and marketed in the present day where the very gear system was abolished, the braking model are totally different, the intricacies or driving technics involved in these vehicles are completely different. With the oncoming of various foreign model cars into India, which are manufactured in India, which got different methodologies in respect of gear, brakes, a person, who was imparted training in such old cars is asked to drive those cars, he will be totally a fish out of the pond and he cannot effectively drive the car in the burgeoning traffic, especially when these new cars are of high speed quality. A person, who has got licence merely because he was trained by the driving school with old cars and passed the test conducted by the Regional Transport Officers concerned, yet it will be a total failure when he takes out the car for a driving. In that process, due to accidents, the public at large will be put to peril. Because of the inability of the drivers to drive new car or conversant with the new system in the new cars, it will be detrimental to public safety. Under those circumstances, we do not find any inconsistency with the Government choosing to regulate the driving schools by stating that they have to use the vehicle, which are less than 8 years for the purpose of imparting driving class. In fact, there is a rationale of eight years also. When we see the existing Rules, in all these vehicles, eight years forms basic limit. As stated supra, when the Taml Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules itself fixes the age limit for tourist cabs, these are all only regulations made by the Transport Commissioner to augment the object of the motor vehicle department, to increase the efficiency of the drivers so as to curtail the occurrence of accidents. As stated supra, when the Taml Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules itself fixes the age limit for tourist cabs, these are all only regulations made by the Transport Commissioner to augment the object of the motor vehicle department, to increase the efficiency of the drivers so as to curtail the occurrence of accidents. Therefore, in our considered view, this is one of the criterions stipulated by the Transport Commissioner to regulate the driving schools, which power is vested with the State Government under Section 12 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, we do not see any reasons to take a different view than the one taken by the learned single Judge and consequently, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is rejected. In fact, before the learned single Judge, an attempt was made to challenge the condition relating to furnishing solvency certificate to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs for establishment of driving schools. Of course, the learned Advocate General, across the Bar, has given a concession that such condition to furnish solvency certificate will apply only to the new driving schools and it will not apply to the existing driving schools. Even here, we find from the earlier order in WP No. 2162 of 1995 dated 15.02.1995 filed by the appellant in W.A. No. 635 of 2010 that in respect of the condition to furnish solvency certificate to the tune of Rs.15,000/-, it was contended in that writ petition that the Commissioners instruction were not in violation of any of the Act and Rules and therefore, this Court also held that the instructions given by the Transport Commissioner is valid and correct. Under those circumstances, the appellants are precluded or estopped from questioning the conditions imposed in the circular to furnish solvency certificate for Rs.3 lakhs. 32. Mr. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. No. 817 of 2010 relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (P. Palaniswami v. Shri Ram Popular Service (P) Ltd.,) 1974 (1) SCC 197 and contended that the Regional Transport Officers are quasi-judicial authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions and therefore, such powers of the Regional Transport Officers cannot be curtailed or taken away by the circular dated 310. 2007 issued by the Transport Commissioner. 2007 issued by the Transport Commissioner. In that case the Government issued guidelines to the Transport Appellate Tribunal, a quasi-judicial authority for disposal of application for permit and such Government Order did not leave the Tribunal absolutely free to decide according to their best judgment in consonance with the provisions of the law. In that case, the question arose in respect of the matter to be decided by the Appellate Tribunal as regards grant of permit issued by the Transport Authority concerned, against which an appeal would lie and when the Appellate Tribunal exercising quasi judicial power or authority, any intrusion by way of circular or direction or guideline issued by the Government would tantamount to interference with such quasi judicial functions. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that such interference is impermissible. In this case, the functions of the Regional Transport Officers are not quasi judicial functions. The Regional Transport Officers are officers appointed under the Central Act by the State Government for the purpose of implementing the Central Act and Rules. Here, the Regional Transport Officer exercise power to grant license to run driving school, for which, as stated above, only certain guidelines have been issued by the superior officer/head of the Department being Transport Commissioner. In fact, the department itself is a creature under the Act as contemplated under Rule 426 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules under which power is given to the Transport Commissioner to issue instructions. In fact, when Section 27 (2) and (3) categorically states that adequate space to be made available for establishment of driving school has to be decided by the licensing authority, a formulation or a regulation made by the State Government to fulfil this object cannot said be to fetter the rights of the licensing authority. Therefore, we are in conformity and in agreement with the reasoning given by the learned single Judge that the circular dated 310. 2007 issued by the Transport Commissioner is only a part of the regulation to regulate the Central Act and Rules, more so, when the State Government is the implementing authority of the Central Government Act and Rules. .33. Mr. 2007 issued by the Transport Commissioner is only a part of the regulation to regulate the Central Act and Rules, more so, when the State Government is the implementing authority of the Central Government Act and Rules. .33. Mr. M.S. Krishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. No. 889 of 2010 relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar and another vs. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva Samiti and another) (2001) 8 scc 378 for the proposition that when the field relating to method of appointment of regular teacher in Government aided institution which is fully covered by the provisions of Act and Rules, when there are no provisions under the Act which empowers the Government to supplement the Rules by executive instructions or administrative orders, it is not open to the government to issue such executive instruction or administrative order. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that executive orders or administrative instructions cannot supplement the Statutory Rules. He also admitted that such executive instructions can be issued to fill the gap, but it should not be inconsistent with the Statute. In that case, the Honourable Supreme Court held that if the Act empowers the State Government to issue administrative instruction by way of supplementing Rules, the position would be different. That case arise out of Karnataka Private Education Institutions (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1978 in respect of method of recruitment for teachers. In this case, as held by us, the Government is empowered to make Rules, State Government has got the Rule making power, especially under Section 12 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which deals with establishment of driving schools and it is specifically excluded under Section 27 of the Act. Moreover, the present circular dated 310. 2007 was issued as a modification to the earlier circulars and it is totally in conformity with the Central Rules. Such power is not inconsistent with the Rule when the circular is issued as a guidelines to be followed for the purpose of adopting an uniform procedure through out the State. Therefore, the judgment relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellant has no application to the facts of this case. 34. Such power is not inconsistent with the Rule when the circular is issued as a guidelines to be followed for the purpose of adopting an uniform procedure through out the State. Therefore, the judgment relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellant has no application to the facts of this case. 34. Reliance was also placed on various decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court including the one reported in (Union of India vs. Charanjit S. Gill) 2000 5 SCC 742 , (K.P. Sudhakaran vs. State of Kerala) 2006 5 SCC 386 and B. Rajagopala Naidu vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal AIR 1964 SC 1573 to substantiate that administrative instructions, circulars or orders cannot override the Statutory Rule. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition that administrative instructions or circulars or orders cannot override the statutory Rule. In this case, as stated above, the circular dated 310. 2007 issued by the Transport Commissioner is not in any way repugnant to the Act or Rules nor there is any prohibition for the Government to issue such circular, especially, when previously circulars were issued by the Transport Commissioner, which were acted upon by the appellants. 35. On a conjoint reading of Section 12 (2), 27, 28 and 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 together with Rule 24 (2) and (3) and Rule 426 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 it will be abundantly clear that the Transport Commissioner, who is the authority under the Act itself, is empowered to issue necessary instructions to his subordinates, including the licensing authorities. As rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, only with a view to avoid arbitrary exercise of power by the licensing authority and to ensure uniformity in the procedures prescribed through out the State, the Transport Commissioner, as a head of the Department, has issued the circular, which was impugned in the writ petition. 36. The Circular dated 310. 2007 issued by the Transport Commissioner is intended with an avowed object of having an effective control over the driving schools, to produce quality and skillful drivers taking into consideration the enormous amount of traffic and the vehicle strength witnessed in the State of Tamil Nadu. The circular has also been issued by taking into consideration the rights of the road users and road safety. Therefore, we are of the view that the circular dated 310. The circular has also been issued by taking into consideration the rights of the road users and road safety. Therefore, we are of the view that the circular dated 310. 2007 is issued as a regulation, intended to benefit the public at large and in public interest. When public interest is pre-dominent, individual interest cannot overweigh the advantages or disadvantages to be caused to the individuals. We are also taking judicial notice that when the quality of the drivers is sought to be enhanced by a proper education and methodology through the driving schools, which are the basic schools cater to the needs of the very many aspiring drivers, we cannot find fault with such regulation intended to benefit the public at large. 37. Inthe light of the above discussion, we confirm the order passed by the learned single Judge and dismiss the writ appeals. However, there shall be no order as to costs. B. Rajendran, J. At the time of pronouncement of judgment, all the counsel representing various driving schools made a representation that even in the original Government Order, a time limit of six months was fixed for the existing driving schools to implement the various regulations imposed in the Circular dated 31.07.2007. Thereafter, when the writ petitions were filed, they had the benefit of interim order till the final disposal of the writ petitions on 210. 2009. Since no interim order was granted in the writ appeals, the main writ appeals are taken up for disposal. Now that the matter has come to an end. Learned counsel for the various driving schools requested some time for implementation of the regulations. 2. In view of the fact that the driving schools have come forward to implement the scheme and prayed six months time to implement the same, time is hereby extended till 312. 2010, by which time, all the existing driving schools should implement all the specifications as formulated in the regulations. But this will not apply to the new driving schools.