Hon'ble JAIN-I, J.—The petitioner has preferred this public interest litigation petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to comply with the provisions of Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1989’) and further to direct the respondent-State to prepare an implementation plan for installation of electronic speed limiters/speed governors to ensure safety of passengers and other road users, who suffer heavy casualties on account of frequent motor vehicle accidents. 2. The petitioner has averred in the petition that road safety is a matter of paramount concern today. To ensure safe roads, various provisions are incorporated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1988’). There are number of reasons for causing motor accidents, out of which one of the important reason is the high speed of the motor vehicles and to control the same, various provisions have been incorporated in the Act of 1988 and the Rules of 1989, but the respondents are not implementing the statutory provisions, which are in public interest. The petitioner has also mentioned that Government of India has issued a Notification bearing No. 425-E dated 09.06.1989, whereby maximum speed limit of motor vehicles has been fixed. Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989 is also there to control the speed of the motor vehicles by fitting speed governors in the motor vehicles. Speed governors can help in reducing the road accidents. It also plays an important role in controlling vehicular pollution. 3. The petitioner has also pleaded that the relevant provisions of the Act of 1988 and the Rules of 1989, including Rule 118 relating to speed governor, were considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others, (1997) 8 SCC 770 = RLW 1998(1) SC 79. Various High Courts including High Courts of Kerala, Karnataka, Calcutta, Punjab and Haryana have issued directions to the concerned respondent-State Governments to implement the provisions of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989. The directions issued by Karnataka and Punjab and Haryana High Courts have been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court also. 4. Various High Courts including High Courts of Kerala, Karnataka, Calcutta, Punjab and Haryana have issued directions to the concerned respondent-State Governments to implement the provisions of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989. The directions issued by Karnataka and Punjab and Haryana High Courts have been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court also. 4. The respondents have filed return to writ petition, wherein it is averred that the State Government has taken various steps and issued various notifications to control the speed limit of the motor vehicles and a reference has been given to the following notifications: (i) Notification dated 06.02.2004, fixing 30 Km. per hour as maximum speed for private mini city buses and roadways city buses; (ii) Another Notification dated 06.02.2004, fixing the maximum speed of heavy, medium, light , two and three wheeler vehicles; (iii) Notification dated 28.07.2008, fixing the speed limit of light motor vehicles; (iv) Notification dated 13/16.08.2010, fixing the action plan to minimize the motor vehicles accidents; (v) Notification dated 19.02.2010, for installation of AIS:018, complaint speed governors in buses for transportation of students within three months; and (vi) Notification dated 23.06.2010, extending the time limit fixed vide Notification dated 19.02.2010 to six months from the date of notification. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that looking to large number of road accidents, there is need of hour, to issue necessary directions to the respondents for implementation of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989, to minimize road accidents. It is further submitted that notifications issued by State Government are only in respect of limiting the speed of various types of motor vehicles, but no specific direction has been issued in respect to all types of motor vehicles, to implement provisions of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989. A direction in this regard has been issued only in respect of transport vehicles used for students only, which is not sufficient and there is no strict compliance of it also. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred above-mentioned notifications, which have been made part of return to writ petition and submitted that necessary action has been taken by the State Government in the matter. 7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the pleadings, rules, notifications and other material available on record. 8. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred above-mentioned notifications, which have been made part of return to writ petition and submitted that necessary action has been taken by the State Government in the matter. 7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the pleadings, rules, notifications and other material available on record. 8. The core issue, involved in the present case, is in respect of implementation of provisions of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989 relating to fitting of speed governor by the operator of such transport vehicle, to issue a direction to the State Government in this regard, to prepare an implementation plan for installation of electronic speed limiters/speed governors within time bound programme and to ensure its compliance. 9. Under Section 110 of the Act of 1988, the Central Government has been empowered to make rules in respect of speed governors. Section 110(1)(f) of the Act of 1988 is reproduced as under: “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) ............ (b) ............ (c) ............ (d) ............ (e) ............ (f) speed governors;” 10. Chapter VIII of the Act of 1988 pertains to control of traffic and it starts from Section 112, which relates to limits of speed of a motor vehicle. Sub-section (2) of Section 112 of the Act of 1988 authorises the State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government to restrict the speed of motor vehicles in the interest of public safety or convenience. Section 112(2) of the Act of 1988 reads thus: “112. Limits of speed.-(1) ........ Sub-section (2) of Section 112 of the Act of 1988 authorises the State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government to restrict the speed of motor vehicles in the interest of public safety or convenience. Section 112(2) of the Act of 1988 reads thus: “112. Limits of speed.-(1) ........ (2) The State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary to restrict the speed of motor vehicles in the interest of public safety or convenience or because of the nature of any road or bridge, by notification in the Official Gazette, and by causing appropriate traffic signs to be placed or erected under section 116 at suitable places, fix such maximum speed limits or minimum speed limits as it thinks fit for motor vehicles or any specified class or description of motor vehicles or for motor vehicles to which a trailer is attached, either generally or in a particular area or on a particular road or roads: Provided that no such notification is necessary if any restriction under this section is to remain in force for not more than one month.” 11. Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989 relates to speed governor, which is also reproduced as under: “118. Speed governor.-(1) On and from the commencement of this rule, such transport vehicles as may be notified by [the State Governments] in the Official Gazette shall be fitted by the operator of such transport vehicle with a speed governor(speed controlling device) [conforming to the Standard AIS:018, as amended from time to time,] in such a manner that the speed governor can be sealed with an official seal of the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority in such a way that it cannot be removed or tampered with or without the seal being broken. (2) The speed governor of every transport vehicle shall be so set that the vehicle is incapable of being driven at a speed in excess of the maximum pre-set speed of the vehicle except down an incline.” 12. The above quoted provisions of law make it clear that Central Government is empowered to make rules in respect of speed governors to be fitted in motor vehicles and while exercising powers, the Central Government has framed Rules of 1989. The above quoted provisions of law make it clear that Central Government is empowered to make rules in respect of speed governors to be fitted in motor vehicles and while exercising powers, the Central Government has framed Rules of 1989. Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989 relates to speed governors which specifically prescribes that the transport vehicles, as may be notified by the State Governments in the Official Gazette, shall be fitted by the operator of such transport vehicle, with a speed governor(speed controlling device), [conforming to the Standard AIS:018, as amended from time to time,] in such a manner that the speed governor can be sealed with an official seal of the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority in such a way that it cannot be removed or tampered with or without the seal being broken. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989 also prescribes that speed governor of every transport vehicle shall be so set that the vehicle is incapable of being driven at a speed in excess of the maximum pre-set of the vehicle except down an incline. 13. The respondents in their return have referred six notifications, which have been mentioned hereinabove. First and second Notifications dated 06.02.2004 and third Notification dated 28.07.2008 relate to fixing of maximum speed, without fitting speed governor of a particular motor vehicle, but they have not been issued to implement the provisions of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989 strictly, by fitting speed governors in motor vehicles by their operators. Fourth Notification dated 13/16.08.2010 is only with respect to action plan prepared by the State Government, but action plan, which has been referred in the notification, has not been enclosed and filed, therefore, it is not clear about action taken by the State Government in respect of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989. Fifth Notification dated 19.02.2010 and sixth Notification dated 23.06.2010 relate to implementation of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989, but these notifications relate only to buses exclusively used for transportation of students. A time limit of three months was given vide Notification dated 19.02.2010 and the said time limit was further extended by six months vide Notification dated 23.06.2010. Fifth Notification dated 19.02.2010 and sixth Notification dated 23.06.2010 relate to implementation of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989, but these notifications relate only to buses exclusively used for transportation of students. A time limit of three months was given vide Notification dated 19.02.2010 and the said time limit was further extended by six months vide Notification dated 23.06.2010. No further direction has been issued about installation of speed governors in new motor vehicles at the time of their registration, therefore, it cannot be said that State Government has taken sufficient steps for implementation of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989. 14. In M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to consider the aspect relating to proper management and control of the traffic in the National Capital Region (NCR) and the National Capital Territory (NCT), Delhi to ensure the maximum possible safeguards which are necessary for public safety. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of its order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: “6. Chapter IV deals with the registration of motor vehicles wherein Section 39 prescribes the necessity for registration. It says that unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with the provisions of the Act, it cannot be driven in any public place. The responsibility to ensure that such a vehicle is not driven is not merely on the person driving the vehicle but also on the owner of the vehicle. Section 45 permits refusal of registration or renewal of the certificate of registration inter alia on the ground that the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of the Act or the rules made thereunder. It is obvious that the vehicle must be roadworthy in the sense that there is no mechanical defect therein to permit it being used as a motor vehicle. The necessity of complying with all the requirements makes it clear that any requirement which is specified under the Act or by the rules, has to be fully complied with and such a requirement would include the requirement of a specified category of motor vehicles being fitted with speed governors or such other devices as may be prescribed by law. The necessity of complying with all the requirements makes it clear that any requirement which is specified under the Act or by the rules, has to be fully complied with and such a requirement would include the requirement of a specified category of motor vehicles being fitted with speed governors or such other devices as may be prescribed by law. Section 53 permits suspension of registration by the registering authority or other prescribed authority if it has reason to believe that any motor vehicle is in such a condition that its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public or that it fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or of the rules made thereunder. It is significant that this power to suspend the registration is available to the authority even if the condition of the motor vehicle is found to be such that its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public, irrespective of whether that is a specific requirement of the Act or the rules. The conferment of this power is for the obvious reason that a motor vehicle which is considered to be unsafe or which poses a danger to the public in a public place, if driven, should not be permitted to ply at a public place since the paramount need is public safety. It is, therefore, clear that even if speed governors are not prescribed for a particular class of motor vehicles by any requirement of the Act or the rules made thereunder, it is permissible for the authority concerned to require the fitting of the speed governors in such motor vehicles for the purpose of ensuring that there is no danger to the public by the use of such a motor vehicle in a public place. The power under Section 53 to this extent is wider. Section 53 read with Section 45 leaves no doubt about the amplitude of power of the authorities concerned whose duty it is to control and regulate the traffic in public places. The basic test to be applied by them for exercise of this power is the need to ensure that there is no danger to the public by use of any motor vehicle in a public place. 7. The basic test to be applied by them for exercise of this power is the need to ensure that there is no danger to the public by use of any motor vehicle in a public place. 7. It is indisputable that heavy and medium vehicles as well as light goods vehicles are in a class by themselves insofar as their potential to imperil public safety is concerned. There is, therefore, immediate need to take measures such as installation of speed-control devices and ensuring that such vehicles are driven by authorised persons. Such measures, designed to further public safety, would undoubtedly be covered by the aforementioned provisions.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. The Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi has issued a Notification dated 24.02.2003, while exercising powers under Section 110(1)(f) of the Act of 1988 read with Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989 (Annexure-5), which is reproduced as under: “(TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT) NOTIFICATION Delhi, the 24th February, 2003 F.No. PCO/STA/2/2001-PF-2/194. In pursuance of the notification dated 24th September, 2001, bearing number S.O. 939(E) of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, issued u/s 110(1)(f) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 read with Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi hereby specified/notifies the manner in which the speed Control device conforming to the AIS: 018 standard, shall be installed on transport vehicles other than three-wheelers and motor cabs operating in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. 1. The type approvals certificate conforming to AIS: 018 standard issued by Authorised Testing Agency under Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 for a particular type of speed control device tested on particular model and make on which the device is tested and also indicated in the test report issued by, the Authorized Testing Agency under Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. For any variant of a particular make, separate certification is required from Authorized Testing Agency. Similarly for any variant of device the same shall be certified on model/variant particular make. 2. The manufacturer of the transport vehicle other than three-wheeler and motor cabs shall ensure that each model/ variant o their make be certified for installation of available make of speed control device before the same is produced to Transport Department, Government of Delhi for its type.................. 2. The manufacturer of the transport vehicle other than three-wheeler and motor cabs shall ensure that each model/ variant o their make be certified for installation of available make of speed control device before the same is produced to Transport Department, Government of Delhi for its type.................. refuse in writing the type approval of the model/variant in the absence of the same. 3. The transport vehicles other than three-wheeler and motor cabs operating on inter-state permits and national goods permit need not require installation of speed control device. However, all such exempted vehicles shall ply only on the corridor specified by the Transport Department. 4. The Transport Commissioner, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi may in writing prescribe the time frame/scheme for different categories of vehicles by which the speed control devide shall be installed and accordingly may restricted the renewal of fitness of validity of permit as deemed fit. 5. If it appears at any moment of time that either the vehicle manufacturer or the speed control device manufacturer are no willing to get certified their vehicle or speed control device on particular make of vehicle or device, the Commissioner, Transport, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi shall stop the registration of that make of vehicle or may ban the manufacturer of the device as the case may be. 6. After ensuring that the speed of the vehicle has been limited at 40 kilometer per hour the board of inspector shall seal the points as prescribed by the Commissioner Transport, for a particular make/model/variant of vehicle and shall issue a certificate in a prescribed format duly approved by the ........ validity of the certificate shall be one year. 7. In case any repair work necessitating fiddling with various connection of the speed control device, which lead to tampering of official seal, the same should be carried out with the prior written permission of the Chief Motor Vehicle Inspector. Inspecting Unit, Burari, Transport Department, Transport Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. After carrying the desired repair work the speed control device shall again be sealed by the board of inspectors and a fresh certificate shall be issued with a validity of one year. The earlier certificate shall be retained by the board of inspectors. 8. Inspecting Unit, Burari, Transport Department, Transport Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. After carrying the desired repair work the speed control device shall again be sealed by the board of inspectors and a fresh certificate shall be issued with a validity of one year. The earlier certificate shall be retained by the board of inspectors. 8. The driver and owner of the vehicle shall ensure that the repair and maintenance work of the speed control device shall be carried out at the authorized work shop of the device manufacturer and by trained personnel. Spare parts shall also be procured from the device manufacturer. The owner of the vehicle shall enter into an annual maintenance contract with the manufacturer or authorized representative of the device manufacturer. 9. The device manufacturer shall not tamper with the official seal of the Transport Department without permission from Chief Motor Vehicle Inspector, Burari, Transport Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. The record of each repair work shall be maintained for each vehicle separately and shall be produced before the authorities on demand. 10. Chief Motor Vehicle Inspector, Inspection Unit Burari shall maintain records of vehicles, certificate, sealing etc. for each vehicle and shall produce the same to authorities on demand. 11. The driver of the transport vehicle while at driving in public place shall ensure that the required number of seals in his vehicle are intact. If it was found by the Enforcement agencies at any time that any seal of the speed control device has been tampered with, thus the entire responsibility will lie on the driver and he shall be prosecuted under section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act. Simultaneously, the Enforcement agencies shall report the matter to Secretary, STA and Secretary, STA shall initiate the proceedings of cancellation or suspension of the permit of the vehicle as per the gravity of act and previous record. 12. The challan in respect of tampering of the speed control device in transport vehicle shall be made/issued not below the level of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Traffic Police and Transport Department, GNCTD. 13. Head of the Enforcement Wing of Transport Department and Delhi Traffic Police shall ensure that the notified vehicles shall be checked regularly on top priority to ensure road safety. 14. 13. Head of the Enforcement Wing of Transport Department and Delhi Traffic Police shall ensure that the notified vehicles shall be checked regularly on top priority to ensure road safety. 14. Notwithstanding anything contained in this notification, the enforcement agencies who have reason to believe that despite the seals of the speed control device being found intact, the vehicle is plying at higher speed than the prescribed speed or by virtue of any device prescribed by the manufacturer of the speed control device, it appears that despite the seals of the device being intact the speed control device is not responding to the said device, the enforcement agencies may in writing direct the driver or any person in charge of the vehicle including owner to submit the vehicle for conducting the test/inspection to measure the speed limit. 15. The Traffic Court dealing with challan made for plying notified transport vehicle with tampered official seal, under section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, shall impose some imprisonment as deemed fit for the established violation of tampering with the official seal of speed control device. 16. If at any time while the seals of speed control device are intact, it is observed by the driver or the permit holder or both that the device is not functioning properly or by any means it is observed that the vehicle speed does not limit to 40 kilometer per hour, the driver or permit holder or both shall report to the authorities and shall ply the vehicle only after rectification and re-certification. 17. If any time it is established by the Enforcement agencies that despite the seals of the device being intact some technical arrangements has been made by the driver or by the permit holder or by both to make the speed control device ineffective than such vehicle shall be considered for violation of the sprit this notification and the driver or the permit holder or both shall be prosecuted under Para 11 and 15 of this notification. 18. It shall be the duty of the owner of the vehicle to train/education the driver of the vehicle about the necessity, seriousness and various parts and seals of the speed control device on the vehicle. The manufacturer of device shall extend all possible help to such owners/ drivers. 19. 18. It shall be the duty of the owner of the vehicle to train/education the driver of the vehicle about the necessity, seriousness and various parts and seals of the speed control device on the vehicle. The manufacturer of device shall extend all possible help to such owners/ drivers. 19. The board of Inspectors while sealing the speed control device shall ensure that the lead seal properly applied on sealing wire and the impression of sealing pliers are correctly legible visible to avoid any dispute at the time of enforcement. 20. The owner/driver of the vehicle shall provide an inspection win-dow on the floor of the vehicle just above the gearbox where sensor of the speed control devices is connected to the gearbox for applying official seal and inspection of seal at the time of enforcement. 21. Where official permission from Chief Motor Vehicle Inspector has been obtained to carry out repair work, the driver and the owner shall ensure that no passenger shall be carried on the vehicle till official seal is again applied. During the intervening time the driver shall display a board on front and rear side indicating in red colour that the vehicle is without speed control device. However, during this time the driver and the owner both shall ensure that the speed of vehicle should not exceed 40 kilometer per hour. 22. For a particular make/ mode/ variant of speed control device on particular make/ model/ variant of vehicle, in writing the manner in which the speed control device shall be installed and sealed. The sealing point of the speed control device shall be device specific. The sealing points for a specific device should be finalized on the recommendation of the authorized testing agencies under Rule 126 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. 23. The driver and the owner of the vehicle fitted with speed control device shall ensure that the following scrip shall be painted on the bottom of the left windscreen or on the bottom of the left side of the windscreen in white colour and letters of 3 centimeter height and appropriate thickness. SPEED LIMITER CONFORMING TO AIS: 018 Standards is installed. By Order in the Name of Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi SINDHUSHREE KHULLAR, Pr.Secy-cum-Commissioner” 16. SPEED LIMITER CONFORMING TO AIS: 018 Standards is installed. By Order in the Name of Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi SINDHUSHREE KHULLAR, Pr.Secy-cum-Commissioner” 16. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court vide its judgment dated 24.09.2002 delivered in Original Petition No. 34466 of 2000, while considering public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, considered various provisions of the Act of 1988 as well as the Rules of 1989, particularly Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989 and allowed the original petition issuing the following directions: “Hence, we allow the original petition and issue a writ of mandamus commanding the State of Kerala and the Regional Transport Authorities constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, in every district in the State to ensure that all stage carriage permits and heavy transport vehicle permits already issued or to be issued henceforth, shall contain a stipulation as to installation of a suitable speed governor which would ensure that the vehicle is not driven at a speed in excess of what is notified in respect of such a vehicle under the notification SO No. 425(E) dated June 9, 1989 prescribed under Section 112 of the Act. The Regional Transport Authority concerned shall take immediate steps to issue notices to the existing permit holders of stage carriage vehicles and heavy transport vehicles and follow the prescribed procedure to have permits amended by incorporating such a condition within a period of three months from today. Original petition is accordingly disposed of.” 17. Transport Department of State of Kerala issued a Notification bearing No. G.O.(P) No. 20/03/Tran. dated 16.04.2003, while exercising powers under sub-rule (1) of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989, which reads as under: “Govt. of Kerala2003   KL/TV(NV12/2003-2005 KERALA GAZETTE EXTRA ORIDNARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY Vol. XLVII Thiruvanathapuram Monday 21st April 2003 No. 632 1st Vaisakha 1925 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Transport Department NOTIFICATION G.O.(P) No. 20/03/Tran. dated 16.04.2003, while exercising powers under sub-rule (1) of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989, which reads as under: “Govt. of Kerala2003   KL/TV(NV12/2003-2005 KERALA GAZETTE EXTRA ORIDNARY PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY Vol. XLVII Thiruvanathapuram Monday 21st April 2003 No. 632 1st Vaisakha 1925 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Transport Department NOTIFICATION G.O.(P) No. 20/03/Tran. Dated Thiruvananthapuram, 16th April, 2003 S.R.O. No. 340/2003-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the Government of Kerala hereby notify that all State Carriage and Heavy Transport Vehicles shall befitted by the Operators of such vehicles with a speed governor(speed controlling device) Conforming to the standard AIS 018, as amended from time to time in such a manner that the speed governor can be sealed with an official seal of the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority in such a way that it cannot be removed or tampered with, without the seal being broken. This Notification shall come into force with effect from the 1st day of September, 2003. By order of the Governor, G.RAJASEKHARAN Secretary to Government.” 18. The Division Bench of Karnataka High Court at Bangalore vide its judgment dated 30.06.2008 delivered in the case of Y.N. Nanjappa vs. State of Karnataka & Others, AIR 2008 Karnataka 199, issued similar directions with regard to implementation of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989. Government of Karnataka had issued a Notification dated 28.03.2005 specifying the transport vehicles to be fitted with speed governors. Writ petition was filed challenging Notification dated 28.03.2005. Government of Karnataka issued another Notification dated 29.06.2007 extending the time to fit the vehicles with speed governors. During the pendency of the writ petition, Government of Karnataka issued another Notification dated 22.01.2008 by which the time to fix the speed governors to all types of vehicles already registered was extended until further notification. The Division Bench quashed both Notifications dated 29.06.2007 and 22.01.2008 and directed the respondents to strictly implement Notification dated 28.03.2005 subject to the modifications contained in Notification dated 01.06.2007. Last operative portion of the judgment contained in para Nos. 20 and 21 is reproduced as under: “20. The Division Bench quashed both Notifications dated 29.06.2007 and 22.01.2008 and directed the respondents to strictly implement Notification dated 28.03.2005 subject to the modifications contained in Notification dated 01.06.2007. Last operative portion of the judgment contained in para Nos. 20 and 21 is reproduced as under: “20. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that there was no justification for issuing the impugned Notifications Annexures-J and M. By issuing the said Notifications, the Government of Karnataka has ignored the object and spirit of the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and also the larger public interest involved. Therefore, Annexure-J Notification dated 29.06.2007 and Annexure-M Notification dated 22.01.2008 are quashed. The respondents-1 and 2 are directed to strictly implement Annexure-B Notification dated 28.03.2005 subject to the modifications contained in Annexure-H Notification dated 01.06.2007. Notwithstanding the quashing of Annexures-J and M Notifications, we are of the view that in order to avoid hardship to the operators of the vehicles, the vehicles already registered should be given some more time to fit Speed Governors as a last and final extension of time. Hence respondents-1 and 2 are directed to grant a further period of three months from today, for fitting the Speed Governors in the vehicles already registered. But new vehicles covered by Annexure-B Notification as modified by Annexure-H Notification, shall not be registered unless they are fitted with Speed Governors. 21. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.” 19. Division Bench of Calcutta High Court vide its judgment dated 28.11.2008 in the case of Suraksha Foundation vs. State of West Bengal & Others (Writ Petition No.15/08) also issued similar directions for implementation of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989. Order passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court is reproduced as under: “The Court : This writ petition has been filed by Suraksha Foundation of New Delhi, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1961. The petitioner is a Non-Government Organization and has highlighted in this petition the alarming growth in the number of vehicles on the roads as well as the increase in number of accidents resulting in death and disablement of people. The petitioner is a Non-Government Organization and has highlighted in this petition the alarming growth in the number of vehicles on the roads as well as the increase in number of accidents resulting in death and disablement of people. To reduce the risk of accident and for better regulation of traffic, the petitioner seeks implementation of Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989(hereinafter called the said Rules), which provides for installation of speed governor in vehicles to be specified by the State Government. In fact, the notification to this effect has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, (Department of Road Transport and Highways) on 3rd of August, 2007 seeking a status report from all the State Governments and Union Territories as to the steps taken for complying with Rule 118 of the said Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of repeated reminders, no action has been taken by the State Govt. for specifying the vehicles on which speed governor is to be fitted in accordance with Rule 118 of the aforesaid Rules. Learned counsel appearing for the State has also submitted that in spite of requests and reminders, no action has been taken by the concerned officials of the Transport Department for issuing necessary notification under Rule 118. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The proposition that Rule 118 of the said Rules is mandatory in nature is evident in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India, (1997) 8 SCC 770 = RLW 1998(1) SC 79. Rule 118 provides as under:- “118. Speed governor.-(1) On and from the commencement of this rule, such transport vehicles as may be notified by [the State Governments] in the Official Gazette shall be fitted by the operator of such transport vehicle with a speed governor(speed controlling device) [conforming to the Standard AIS:018, as amended from time to time,] in such a manner that the speed governor can be sealed with an official seal of the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority in such a way that it cannot be removed or tampered with or without the seal being broken. (2) The speed governor of every transport vehicle shall be so set that the vehicle is incapable of being driven at a speed in excess of the maximum pre-set speed of the vehicle except down an incline.” A perusal of the said Rule also makes it clear that it is couched in mandatory terms. Pursuant to the aforesaid Rule, it was necessary for the State Government to notify in the Official Gazette categories of such transport vehicles in which necessary governor shall be fitted. However, it appears that in spite of the issuance of the notification by the Central Government on 3rd of August, 2007, no action has been taken by the State Government till date. We, therefore, allow this writ petition and direct the State Government to comply with the provisions of Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and to ensure enforcement of speed governors in accordance with law. Such notification be issued within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order. Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.” 20. Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh vide its judgment dated 22.07.2009 in the case of Suraksha Foundation vs. State of Punjab and Another (Writ Petition No. 15081 of 2007) also considered all the relevant provisions of the Act of 1988 as well as the Rules of 1989 and issued necessary directions for implementation of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989. Operative portion of the judgment reads thus: “In the result, we allow this petition but only in part and to the following extent:- 1) The State Government shall by a suitable notification stipulate that no medium or heavy goods or passenger motor vehicle shall be registered by the Transport Authorities concerned unless the same are fitted with speed governors that comply with the requirement of Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and restrict the maximum speed of such vehicles to the maximum prescribed for the same, in terms of notification dated 27.9.2007 issued by the State Government. The needful in this regard to be done within two months. The needful in this regard to be done within two months. 2) For the vehicles that are already registered, the State government shall stipulate a period of one year, from the date of this order, to be fitted with speed governors, failing which the Authorities shall take appropriate steps against violation of the said requirement. 3) The State Government shall, over and above the medium, heavy goods and passenger vehicles, examine whether speed governors are meant to be prescribed for any other class of vehicles. if so, the speed limit which the speed governors should permit for the same. The needful in this regard shall be done by the State Government, expeditiously, but not later than six months from today. The writ petition is disposed off with the above directions leaving the parties to bear their own costs.” 21. The above referred judgment passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court was challenged by State of Punjab before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal(Civil) No. 12300/2010 and the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated 25.08.2010. The Hon’ble Apex Court not only dismissed special leave petition, but also directed the petitioners, i.e. State of Punjab to ensure compliance of the directions given by the Division Bench. Order dated 25.08.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is reproduced as under: “UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. After having partially complied with the directions given by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to implement certain provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the petitioners have filed this petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We have heard Shri Ajay Bansal, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and perused the record. In our view, the directions given by the High Court for ensuring that no medium or heavy goods/passenger motor vehicle is registered by the Transport Authorities of the State unless the same are fitted with speed governors as per the requirement of Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 with a further direction to ensure that such speed governors are fitted in the already registered vehicle within a period of one year do not suffer from any legal infirmity. In our opinion, the directions given by the Division Bench of the High Court are in public interest and there is no valid ground much less justification to interfere with the impugned order. With the above observations, the special leave petition is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to ensure full compliance of the directions given by the Division Bench and submit a report to the High Court within a period of three months from today. A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, who shall place the same before the learned Chief Justice. The report, which the petitioners will be required to file in terms of this order, shall also be placed before the learned Chief Justice for his consideration and appropriate directions.” 22. From the above discussion of facts, relevant provisions of law and various judgments and orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts, it is clear that implementation of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989 is necessary in the State of Rajasthan, by the respondents. The respondents in return to writ petition have referred six notifications, which have been discussed hereinabove and it has been found that three notifications(Annexures R/1 to R/3) have not been issued to implement Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989. Two Notifications dated 19.02.2010 and 23.06.2010, which were issued under Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989, were limited for buses exclusively used for transportation of students and by the said notifications, time was fixed, but no direction has been issued for compulsory installation of speed governors in all running motor vehicles and motor vehicles now to be registered. No action taken report has been submitted about compliance of Notifications dated 19.02.2010 and 23.06.2010 also. In these circumstances, it is necessary to issue a writ of Mandamus in the present matter directing the respondents to take necessary steps to implement the provisions of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989. 23. No action taken report has been submitted about compliance of Notifications dated 19.02.2010 and 23.06.2010 also. In these circumstances, it is necessary to issue a writ of Mandamus in the present matter directing the respondents to take necessary steps to implement the provisions of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989. 23. Consequently, we allow the writ petition and issue the following directions to the respondents: (1) The respondents are directed to issue a notification for implementation of provisions of Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, i.e. fitting of speed governors, in respect of all the existing heavy and medium goods or passenger motor vehicles, including the vehicles belonging to State Government and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, within a period of two months from today. (2) Necessary action in pursuance of the said notification, to be issued as per above direction No. (1), will be taken by the respondents' authorities immediately thereafter and it be ensured that speed governors are fitted in all the existing/registered heavy and medium goods or passenger motor vehicles, including the vehicles belonging to State Government and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, within a period of six months from today. If there is any need for extension of time in this regard, then an application may be filed by the respondents giving out the details of steps already taken by them in this regard, the number of motor vehicles in which speed governors have been fitted and also showing the justification for extension of time. This liberty of filing an application may not be used lightly and it may not be understood that time will be extended on filing the application without any justified reason. (3) The respondents are directed not to register and issue certificate of registration in respect of any new heavy and medium goods and passenger motor vehicles, including the vehicles belonging to State Government and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation with effect from 15.07.2012, unless the said vehicle is fitted with a speed governor, as required under Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989 and the notification to be issued by the respondents in this regard as per direction No. 1 issued hereinabove. (4) The respondents are directed to ensure the compliance/ implementation of Notifications dated 6.2.2004 (Annexs. (4) The respondents are directed to ensure the compliance/ implementation of Notifications dated 6.2.2004 (Annexs. R/1 and R/2) and to furnish the details of their action plan for implementing these notifications and how the same are being monitored by them. A com-plete report in this regard be submitted within a period of one month. 24. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.