ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent not to insist on painting the vehicle with the colour prescribed, under Rule 348(2) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner, for the renewal of the fitness certificate of the vehicle, bearing Registration No.TN 52 Z 4097, had been returned with endorsement that the petitioner should paint the vehicle in the colour prescribed, under Rule 348(2) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, before the fitness certificate is granted. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the said endorsement made by the respondent concerned, while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, for the renewal of the fitness certificate of the vehicle in question, is arbitrary and contrary to the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that Rule 348(2) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, prescribes that every goods carriage carrying goods, which are dangerous and hazardous in nature, shall be painted, fully, in red colour and a lamp in yellow colour shall also be fitted on the top of the cabin. Therefore, the vehicle of the petitioner, transporting explosive materials, should follow Rule 348(2) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for the renewal of the fitness certificate of the vehicle in question. Hence, the Writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent, and on perusal of the records available, this Court finds that the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The petitioner should follow Rule 348(2) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for the renewal of the fitness certificate of the vehicle in question. The petitioner should follow Rule 348(2) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for the renewal of the fitness certificate of the vehicle in question. As such, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the endorsement made by the authority concerned, while rejecting the application of the petitioner, for the renewal of the fitness certificate of the vehicle in question, bearing Registration No. TN 52 Z 4097. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.