JUDGMENT :- 1. These writ petitions have been filed with regard to the fixing of speed Governors, as per the Government Order, in G.O.(Ms) No.563, Home (Transport-V) Department, dated 10.6.2010, and to forbear the respondents from insisting on the petitioners fitting the speed governors, pursuant to the said government order, in respect of medium and heavy passenger motor vehicles. 2. The petitioners have raised various grounds while challenging the government order, in G.O.(Ms) No.563, Home (Transport-V) Department, dated 10.6.2010, stating that the fixing of the maximum speed limit of 50 kms. per hour for the vehicles used by educational institutions, under Section 112(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is arbitrary and invalid in the eye of law. 3. It has been stated that Section 112 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, states that no person shall drive a motor vehicle or cause or allow a motor vehicle to be driven in any public place at a speed exceeding the maximum speed or below the minimum speed fixed for the vehicle under the Act. It has been provided that the maximum speed shall, in no case, exceed the maximum fixed for any motor vehicle or class or description of motor vehicles, by the Central Government, by a notification in the official Gazette. 4. Section 112(2) of the Act, enables the State Government to fix the maximum speed or minimum speed for motor vehicles or any specified class or description of motor vehicles, either generally or in a particular area or of a particular road or roads, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to restrict the speed of such vehicles in the interest of public safety, convenience or due to the condition of any road or bridge. Such restrictions can be imposed by way of a notification in the official Gazette and by causing, placing or erecting such signs at suitable places, under Section 116 of the Act. 5. Even though it is clear that, for the exercising of such powers, the State Government should be satisfied that the restriction of the speed of the vehicles is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience or the nature of the bridge or the road, from the impugned Government Order it cannot be seen that there was such satisfaction before the speed limit had been fixed by the State Government. Hence, the impugned order of the State Government is liable to be set aside. 6. It had also been stated that the State Government had requested the Government of India to consider the necessity of enhancing the maximum speed limit of 65 kms. per hour fixed by the Government of India, based on the report of the expert committee constituted by the State Government. 7. Even though the statistics relied on by the respondents, relating to the increase in the rate of accidents in the State of Tamilnadu may be true, it has to be noted that there are a number of contributory factors for such increase in the number of accidents. The reduction of the speed limit to 50 kms. per hour, in respect of medium and heavy motor vehicles, owned by educational institutions, by way of the fixing of the speed governors, cannot be a complete solution. Various aspects have to be studied and decisions should be taken, after obtaining the necessary suggestions from a committee of experts, who are well versed in the field. 8. It has been further stated that the respondents have made it clear that the road conditions in the State of Tamil Nadu are of a very high standard, as compared to a number of other states in India. Further, the vehicles used by the educational institutions for transporting the students are also efficient and the quality of the vehicles are of a high standard. 9. As seen from the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that the State Government had constituted an expert committee, which had recommended that a request may be made to the Government of India to increase the upper speed limited fixed by the Government of India, at 65 kms. per hour. While so, it is inappropriate for the State Government to fix an upper speed limit at 50 kms. per hour for medium and heavy motor vehicles used by educational institutions. There is no reasonable difference between the two classes of the motor vehicles created by the State Government, namely, the medium and heavy motor vehicles used by the educational institutions and those vehicles used by the other institutions. Further, there is no reasonable nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved. There is no reasonable difference between the two classes of the motor vehicles created by the State Government, namely, the medium and heavy motor vehicles used by the educational institutions and those vehicles used by the other institutions. Further, there is no reasonable nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved. As such, the impugned Government order cannot stand the test of reasonableness prescribed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. It had also been stated that the fixing of the same upper speed limit at 50 kms. per hour for the vehicles used by educational institutions on the highways, cities, smaller towns and for the rural areas, including the far flung villages, cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. Further such restrictions would be detrimental to the welfare of the students, as well as the educational institutions concerned, as it may not be possible to collect the students from the various places, where the students are residing, to bring them to the educational institutions, before they commence their work for the day. As such, the impugned order, in G.O.(Ms) No.563, Home (Transport-V) Department, dated 10.6.2010, is arbitrary, illegal and void. 11. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that an expert committee had given an opinion that the State Government should make a request to the Government of India to consider the necessity to enhance the upper speed limit from 65 kms. per hour already fixed by the Central Government, in view of the prevalence of better infrastructural facilities for the use of the motor vehicles. It had also been submitted by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents that the State Government is contemplating on increasing the upper speed limit of 50 kms. per hour, based on an expert opinion obtained from a committee of experts. 12. This Court in its earlier orders, dated 8.11.2010, made in W.P.No.22121 of 2010 and W.P.No.28891 of 2010, dated 21.12.2010, had come to a finding that there is no necessity for quashing the Government Order, in G.O.(Ms) No.563, Home (Transport-V) Department, dated 10.6.2010. However, it had been held that the notification of the Central Government and the Government Order issued by the State Government should be read, harmoniously, and therefore, there is no necessity for setting aside the impugned Government Order. However, it had been held that the notification of the Central Government and the Government Order issued by the State Government should be read, harmoniously, and therefore, there is no necessity for setting aside the impugned Government Order. No appeal has been filed challenging the said order, till date. 13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and the records available before this Court and in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court in W.P.22121 of 2010, dated 8.11.2010 and W.P.No.28891 of 2010, dated 21.12.2010, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to keep the impugned government order, in G.O.(Ms) No.563, Home (Transport-V) Department, dated 10.6.2010, in abeyance, in so far as it relates to the fixing of the upper limit of 50 kms per hour, for the medium and heavy motor vehicles used by the educational institutions and with regard to the fixing of speed governors in such vehicles, until the State Government obtains an opinion from an expert committee, with regard to the fixing of the upper speed limit for such vehicles. 14. It is made clear that, after obtaining the expert opinion, the State Government may fix the upper speed limit for such vehicles and may also make a request to the Government of India to increase the upper speed limit, from the existing 65 kms. per hour, as it deems fit to do so. As such, this Court does not find it appropriate to quash the Government Order, in G.O.(Ms) No.563, Home (Transport-V) Department, dated 10.6.2010, at this stage. Accordingly, the respondents are restrained from implementing the impugned Government Order, till such time the State Government passes an appropriate order, as noted above, with regard to the upper speed limit for the vehicles in question and in respect of the fixing of the speed governors in such vehicles. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.