JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.04.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) (SH) 42 of 2011. By this impugned judgment the learned Single Judge has affirmed the Notification dated 11.02.2011 passed by the Government of Meghalaya, Transport Department, restricting the body height of coal laden trucks to a maximum height of 1 metre from the surface on which the body rests. In other words, after affirming the aforesaid notification the writ petition has been dismissed. Hence, this appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. S.Sen, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. S. Kynjing, the learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. N. D. Chullai, learned senior GA, for the State of Meghalaya. With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides the appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. We have also perused the impugned judgment and also the pleadings of both the parties. 4. For effective disposal of the writ appeal it is necessary to reproduce the impugned Notification dated 11.02.2011 in extenso, which is as under:- GOVERNMENT OF MEGHALAYA TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION Dated Shillong the 11th February, 2011 No. TPT. 123/2008/214 - In pursuance of the Supreme Court Order dated 09.11.2005 in WP (C) 136 of 2003 read with order dated 06.12.2010 and to ensure compliance of all trucks especially coal carrying trucks plying in the State of Meghalaya with the stipulations of the Order of Supreme Court for trucks of 16.2 GVW with two axles to carry a load of about 9 MT, the State Government hereby stipulates under Section 113(10) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 that all coal carrying trucks with this, specification shall have a body height restricted to a maximum of 1 metre, measured from the surface of which the body rests, while plying within the State of Meghalaya. Further, the State Government under Section 113(1) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 prohibits entry and plying of such coal carrying vehicles within Meghalaya along the NH 44 Shillong-Jowai-Malidar, NH 44E Nongstoin-Shillong, NH 40 Gauhati- Shillong, NH 62 Dudnoi-Bhagmara-Dalu and the state highway from Nongstoin-Tura via Shillong, that do not conform to the body height restriction of 1 metre as referred to above. This Notification shall take effect from the 22nd February 2011. This Notification shall take effect from the 22nd February 2011. Sd/- Principal Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Transport Department. 5. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has observed that the State Government possessed power to reduce the specified height of the body of the trucks with a view to restrict/limit carrying of excess quantity of coal in the trucks. 6. The controversy of the writ appeal centers around the provisions of Section 110, 113(1) and114 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 vis-a-vis Rule 93 (4) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Hence, the aforesaid provisions are also quoted below:- 110. Power of Central Government to make rules.- (1) The Central Government may make rules regulating the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles and trailers with respect to all or any of the following matters, namely:- (a) the width, height, length and overhang of vehicles and of the loads carried; (b) to (m) ***** ***** "2 [(n) installation of catalytic converters in the class of vehicles to be prescribed; (o) the placement of audio-visual or radio or tape recorder type of devices in public vehicles; (p) warranty after sale of vehicle and norms therefor.] (2) Rules may be made under sub-section (1) governing the matters mentioned therein, including the manner of ensuring the compliance with such matters and the maintenance of motor vehicles in respect of such matters, either generally in respect of motor vehicles or trailers or in respect of motor vehicles or trailers of a particular class or in particular circumstances. (3) 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. 113- Limits of weight and limitations on use.- (1) the State Government may prescribe the conditions for the issue of permits for [transport vehicles] by the State or Regional Transport Authorities and may prohibit or restrict the use of such vehicles in any area or route. 114. Power to have vehicle weighed. 113- Limits of weight and limitations on use.- (1) the State Government may prescribe the conditions for the issue of permits for [transport vehicles] by the State or Regional Transport Authorities and may prohibit or restrict the use of such vehicles in any area or route. 114. Power to have vehicle weighed. (1) Any officer of the Motor vehicles Department authorised in this behalf by the State Government shall, if he has reason to believe that a goods vehicle or trailer is being used in contravention of Section 133], require the driver to convey the vehicle to a weighing device, if any, within a distance of ten kilometres from any point on the forward route or within a distance of twenty kilometres from the destination of the vehicle for weighment and if on such weighment the vehicle is found to contravene in any respect the provisions of Section 113 regarding weight, he may, by order in writing, direct the driver to off-load the excess weight at his own risk and not to remove the vehicle or trailer from that place until the laden weight has been reduced or the vehicle or trailer has otherwise been dealt with so that it complies with Section 113 and on receipt of such notice, the driver shall comply with such directions. (2) Where the person authorised under subsection (1) makes the said order in writing, he shall also endorse the relevant details of the overloading on the goods carriage permit and also intimate the fact of such endorsement to the authority which issued that permit. Central Motor Vehicle Rules. 1989 93. Overall dimension of motor vehicles:- 93 (4) The overall height of a motor vehicle measured from the surface on which the vehicle rests- (i). in the case of a vehicle other than a double-decked (transport vehicle) shall not exceed 3.8 metres; (ii). in the case of a double decked transport vehicle, shall not exceed 4.75 metres; (ii-a) in the case of a tractor-trailer goods vehicle, shall not exceed 4.20 metres; (iii) in the case of a laden trailer goods vehicle, shall not exceed 4.20 metres; Provided that the provisions of clauses (i) to (iii) shall not apply to fire-escape tower wagons and other special purpose vehicles exempted by general or special order of registering authority. 7. 7. Sri Sen, learned counsel for the appellants, strongly contended that the impugned Notification is de-hors to the statutory provision and the same has been issued without jurisdiction by the authority. According to the learned counsel, Section 110 of M.V.Act empowers he Central Government to make rules regulating, inter alia, the construction of motor vehicles and in exercise of that power the Central Government has fixed the maximum height of a vehicle, other than double decked transport vehicle etc., to 3.8 metres. However, by virtue of the impugned Notification the respondents have reduced the height from 3.8 metres to a maximum of 1 metre. Mr. Sen, further contended that although the Notification gives an indication that this measure has specially been taken only to restrict excess loading and carrying of coal in the trucks and not applicable to other vehicles. However, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Government cannot pre-empt that a transport vehicle shall always and invariably be used for carrying coal throughout the year. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that on given occasions coal trucks also carry other items of light weight which may not be possible to carry with one metre body height. Be that as it may, the appellants are challenging the source of issuing the impugned Notification dated 11.02.2011. 8. Per contra, the learned Advocate General submitted that the impugned Notification has been issued with an objective to control over-loading of the coal laden trucks in public interest. The learned Advocate General also contended that the communication of the Notification became necessary after physical survey that majority of the trucks grossly violates the provisions of law by way of carrying excess quantity of coal. 9. Under Section 110(1) of the M. V. Act, it is only the Central Government which can make Rules regulating the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles, including weight, height, length etc. No power has been delegated to the States in this regard. In this way, the State Governments have not been empowered to make any Rules contrary to the Rules framed by the Central Government. It is true that under sub-section (3) of Section 110, some exemption has been given to the State Governments, to exempt any motor vehicle from the Rules, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government. It is true that under sub-section (3) of Section 110, some exemption has been given to the State Governments, to exempt any motor vehicle from the Rules, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government. However, during the course of hearing, the learned Advocate General for the State Government could not produce any such Notification from the Central Government. Even otherwise, in our view the word 'exempt' employed in Section 110(3) is akin and pari-materia to 'relax' the stipulation, which cannot be contrary to the benefit already given under the principal law. In other words, relaxation means easing the stringent provision and not to make the law more stringent. 10. Pursuant to Section 110, the Central Government has framed the Rules. Rule 93 deals with overall dimension of the motor vehicles. Rule 93 (4) specifically lays down the maximum height of different kinds of vehicles. In the case before us, we are concerned with coal laden transport vehicles other than the double-decked transport vehicles. Under Rule 93 (4) Clause (i) the maximum height of transport vehicles has been fixed at 3.8 metres from the surface on which the vehicle rests. 11. From the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State in the writ proceeding, it is apparent that the aforesaid Notification has been issued invoking the provisions of Section 113 of the M. V. Act and not under any other Rule or Notification from the Central Government, authorizing/empowering the State Government to regulate the height of the motor vehicles. 12. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge the Rules provide the maximum height of 3.8 metres and as such the Government is competent to reduce the height of the body. In our considered opinion, since Section 110(1)(a) read with Rule 93(4) Clause(1), authorizes the manufacturers to manufacture transport vehicles, other than double-decked transport vehicles, no authority can compel to down size the height of the body. In our opinion, under special circumstances an appropriate authority may seek relaxation of the height, subject to approval to the Central Government or if it is prescribed in the Rules. 13. In the impugned Notification dated 11.02.2011 the restriction has been imposed upon the coal laden trucks, while plying within the State of Meghalaya. At the same time in the later part of the Notification it has been clarified that such coal laden trucks ply through NH Nos. 13. In the impugned Notification dated 11.02.2011 the restriction has been imposed upon the coal laden trucks, while plying within the State of Meghalaya. At the same time in the later part of the Notification it has been clarified that such coal laden trucks ply through NH Nos. 40, 44 and 62 and such trucks transporting goods beyond the territory of the State of Meghalaya. In this way, there is self contradiction in the Notification itself. Be that as it may, the challenge to the Notification centres round the authority of the State to issue such Notification. Apparently the Notification has been issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 113(1) of MV Act, which in fact does not exist in the statute. 14. The other ground to defend the impugned Notification dated 11.02.2011 is that the restriction has been imposed in the public interest inasmuch as, the trucks are found to be carrying excess quantity of coal. In this regard we may refer to Section 114 of the M V. Act which empowers the competent authority to weigh the vehicles and if any vehicle is found carrying excess quantity of goods the excess quantity of goods can be offloaded and fine can also be imposed in accordance with the Rules. In this way, the State Government is adequately armed to regulate excess loading of goods in the trucks. On this ground also the impugned Notification is untenable. 15. For the reasons, assigned hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the impugned Notification dated 11.02.2011 is contrary to law. Consequently both the impugned Notification as well as the impugned judgment are unsustainable in law and are hereby quashed and set aside. 16. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed.