ORDER 1. Petitioner-company is seeking quashing of the actions constituting the purported ban and all such actions of the respondents which purport to restrict the free conduct of the petitioner's business and not to interfere with free conduct of the petitioner's business and for quashing the 1998 Scheme vide Annexure-M to the extent that it creates a new permit and conditions not contemplated by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also for quashing the impugned MHA Advisory issued by respondent 2 to State Governments and Union Territory Administrations and other relief. Heard the learned Counsel for respective parties. It appears, since from past 16 years i.e. from 1998 as per Annexure-M, there are said to be some regulations which is being followed under the Motor Vehicles Act. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner is that the 4th respondent without following due procedure and by adopting coercive method, has banned the business activities of the petitioner. 2. As per the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate, the Central Government Home Ministry has issued certain directions in order to regulate the activities of private taxi operators, to recognise their ownership and for fixation of liability in case of any criminal activities being identified. In that process, it appears State Government has made up its mind to set right certain irregularities in the Motor Vehicles Act. In the meanwhile, to curb such illegal activities they sought to proceed against certain of the private operators and petitioner is one such among them. Of course, the State Government has to correct such irregularities in the State Act by bringing in necessary amendment according to the directions/suggestions issued by the Central Government Home Ministry. Before which any action taken without following due procedural law, would be non est. Hence, if any regulation has to be introduced by following the principles of delegated legislation and the rules provided therein, it is for the State Government to adhere to the directions issued by the Central Government and thereafter to proceed to take action in accordance with law if there is any violation or if there is any short of compliance of regulations. It is needless to say in order to bring about amendment to the Act by implementing the suggestions by the Central Government, certain procedure has to be followed as noted above. It is needless to say in order to bring about amendment to the Act by implementing the suggestions by the Central Government, certain procedure has to be followed as noted above. Till then, if at all respondent-authority proceed against any of the persons/ petitioner, they have to follow the procedure framed under Annexure-L and in accordance with law. According to the petitioner, he comes under Contract Carriage Scheme and 1998 Scheme is not applicable. If that would be the case, then it is for the respondent-authorities to clarify as to whether petitioner comes under the 1998 Scheme or he is a contract carriage permit holder. If the authorities are not satisfied by the explanation of the petitioner and an order is passed to that effect, then petitioner if aggrieved by any such action to be initiated, is at liberty to approach this Court. At this stage, it is too premature to entertain the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Disposed off.