JUDGMENT : A.J. DESAI, J. 1. By way of the present petition filed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 226 of the Constitution of India, the following prayers have been made: “[A] That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction preventing the respondents, their agents, servants or subordinated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from either prosecuting or issuing memo to the vehicles of the petitioner-company which have been granted exemptions from operation of the Rule-93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 either by the Central Government or by any other State Government and more particularly described in the order of exemptions at Annexure-F, Annexure-H, Annexure-I and Annexure-J collectively; [B] That this Honourable Court will be pleased to issue appropriated writ, order and direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction preventing the respondents, their agents or subordinate officers from treating the petitioners' vehicles granted exemption either by the Central government of by the State of Maharashtra by the aforesaid orders at Annexure-F, Annexure-H, Annexure-I and Annexure-J Collectively. [C] That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to repay the compounding free recovered from the vehicles of the petitioner-company which have been granted exemption either by the Central Government or by the State of Maharashtra by the aforesaid order Annexure-F, Annexure-H, Annexure-I and Annexure-J collectively. [D] That this Honourable Court will be pleased to order to restrain the respondents, their agents, servants or subordinate officers through out the State from recovering any fine or imposing the penalty of the vehicles owner by the petitioner-company which have been granted exemptions from operation of Rule-93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 either by the Central Government or by the State of Maharashtra by the afore said orders at Annexure-F, Annexure-H, Annexure-I and Annexure-J collectively till and pending hearing and final disposal of this petition; [E] That this Honourable Court will be pleased to order to restrain the respondents, their agents, servants or subordinate officers throughout the State from detaining the vehicles owned by the petitioner-company which have been granted exemption from operation of Rule-93 of the Central Motor Vehicles, 1989 either by the Central Government or by the State of Maharashtra by the aforesaid order at Annexure-F, Annexure-H, Annexure-I and Annexure-J collectively till and pending hearing and final disposal of this petition.” 2. Pursuant to notice issued by the Court, respondents have appeared and filed reply. 3. Brief facts arise from the record are as under: 3.1 That petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and petitioner No. 2 is the director of petitioner company and is engaged in the business of commercial transportation of the tractor and farm equipment of other vehicles and goods from the manufacturing units of various companies to the dealers of the said companies located at various places throughout the country. The petitioner company is transporting the vehicles of various companies such as Eicher Motors Limited, Escorts Limited, Force Motors Limited, HMT Limited, Indo Farm Tractors & Motors Limited, International Tractors Limited, John Deere Equipment Private Limited, Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, New Holland Tractors Limited, Punjab Tractors Limited, Same Deuts Fahr Limited, Tranctor and Farm Equipments (TAFE) limited. The petitioner company is transporting the vehicles of various companies such as Eicher Motors Limited, Escorts Limited, Force Motors Limited, HMT Limited, Indo Farm Tractors & Motors Limited, International Tractors Limited, John Deere Equipment Private Limited, Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, New Holland Tractors Limited, Punjab Tractors Limited, Same Deuts Fahr Limited, Tranctor and Farm Equipments (TAFE) limited. 3.2 Chapter-VII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1988’ for short) proves constructions/equipments and maintenance of the motor vehicles and empowers the Central Government as well as the State Government to make rules with regard with respect to width, height, length and overhand of vehicles and of the loads carried, the size, nature, maximum retail price and condition of tyres, including embossing thereon of date and year of manufacture and the maximum load carrying capacity, brakes and steering gear, the use of safety glasses including prohibition of the use of tinted safety glasses etc. of the vehicles. 3.3 Section 110(3)(a) of the Act, 1988 empowers the Central Government to exempt any class of motor vehicles from the provisions of Chapter-VII and Section 1103(b) of the Act, 1988 empowers the State Government to 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. 3.4 The Central Government while exercising its powers conferred by the different provisions of the Act, 1988 framed rules namely the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1989’ for short). Chapter-V of the said rules deals with the construction, equipments and maintenance of the motor vehicles. Rule-93 of the Rules, 1989 prescribed the Overall Dimension of Motor Vehicles, which are required to be followed by the owner of the motor vehicles. The Central Government framed rules under section 110(3)(a) of the Act, 1988 namely the Overall Dimension of Motor Vehicles (Prescription of Conditions for Exemption) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Overall Rules, 1991’ for short). Under Rule-2 of the Overall Rules, 1991, the State Government empowers to exempt any motor vehicles or class of description of motor vehicles from provisions of Rule-93 of the Rules, 1989 by imposing appropriate condition. 3.5 The petitioner company is having vehicles registered with the different authorities in different States used to apply for exemption under the Overall Rules, 1991. Under Rule-2 of the Overall Rules, 1991, the State Government empowers to exempt any motor vehicles or class of description of motor vehicles from provisions of Rule-93 of the Rules, 1989 by imposing appropriate condition. 3.5 The petitioner company is having vehicles registered with the different authorities in different States used to apply for exemption under the Overall Rules, 1991. 3.6 The Home Department, State of Maharashtra had granted exemption to vehicles referred in the order dated 22.12.2006 3.7 It is the case of the petitioner company that three vehicles having registration Nos. MH-04 CU 506, MH-04 CU 817 and MH-04 CP 8350 were detained by the State of Gujarat since there was no exemption granted by the State of Gujarat under the Overall Rules, 1991. Therefore, appropriate prayers have been made by filing the present petition. 4. The matter was listed on 24.04.2007 before the Coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein notice was issued to the respondents on 22.07.2008 the following order was passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. “No interim relief at this stage. If condition No. 8 is deleted by the State of Maharashtra in its order dated 22.12.2006, the petitioner may move appropriate application for interim relief. The matter to be listed in final hearing board.” 5. Mr. Champaneri, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the respondent-State of Gujarat ought not to have detained the aforesaid vehicles since permission granted by one State is required to be treated as valid throughout India under Rule-3 of the Overall Rules, 1991 and therefore, the action of the respondent State is illegal and required to be quashed and set aside. He would submit that Rule-3 of the Overall Rules, 1991, the Central Government has specifically states that even there are doubts, the exemption granted under the these rules shall be valid throughout India and therefore, the respondent authority ought not to have detained the vehicles. 6. By taking me through several orders passed by the State of Maharashtra under the provisions of the Overall Rules, 1991 with regard to other vehicles, he would submit that it may be declared that the said vehicles shall be treated as exempted throughout India. 7. On the other hand, Ms. V.C. Shah, learned AGP, has vehemently opposed this petition. 6. By taking me through several orders passed by the State of Maharashtra under the provisions of the Overall Rules, 1991 with regard to other vehicles, he would submit that it may be declared that the said vehicles shall be treated as exempted throughout India. 7. On the other hand, Ms. V.C. Shah, learned AGP, has vehemently opposed this petition. He would submit that three vehicles have been exempted by the State of Maharashtra by order dated 22.12.2006 on specific conditions imposed by the concerned department that such permission will be valid within the limits of the State of Maharashtra only and those vehicles, which were granted exemption by the said order, entered into the limits of the State of Gujarat and therefore, the State of Gujarat has rightly detained the vehicles. No doubt, after charging appropriate fine, the vehicles, which were detained by the State of Gujarat, had been released immediately. He, therefore, would submit that Rule-2 of the Overall Rules, 1991 empowers the State to impose appropriate condition while considering the exemption application by a motor vehicle. When the State Government is imposing such condition, there is no question raising any doubt and Rule-3 of the Overall Rules, 1991 would not be applicable in the present case. He would further submit that it is not a case of the vehicles other than referred in the order dated 26.12.2006 have ever been detained by the State of Gujarat and therefore, general directions are not required to be issued in the matter. 8. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. It is an undisputed fact that those three vehicles, which were detained by the State of Gujarat and were released immediately on payment of penalty, were granted exemption under the Overall Rules, 1991 by the State of Maharashtra. By order dated 22.12.2006, the Home Department, State of Maharashtra imposed certain conditions as provided under the Rule-2 of the Overall Rules, 1991 and as per condition No. 8 of the order dated 22.12.2008, the permission/exemption was made valid only within the territory of the State of Maharashtra. 9. Rules-2 and 3 of the Overall Rules, 1991 are as under: “2. 9. Rules-2 and 3 of the Overall Rules, 1991 are as under: “2. Conditions for the grant of exemption from Rule-93: The State Government may exempt any motor vehicle or any class of description of motor vehicles from the provisions of Rule-93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, subject to the fulfillment of any or all of other conditions specified in these rules which that Government may deem fit to impose namely:- [1] Such motor vehicle or class of description of motor vehicles shall:- [a] observe such load restrictions as the State Government may by order specify in this behalf; [b] obtain the previous permission of such authority as may be specified by the State Government in this behalf before putting such vehicles on the load; [c] not, if they are loaded, travel over such bridges and cross drainage structures on the road, which the State Government may, having regard to the safety of the road structures, specify; [d] where prohibited under clause (c) to travel over the structure referred to in that clause, the owner of transporter shall at his cost make arrangements to cross the rivers in accordance with the directions, given by the authority specified by the State Government in this behalf; [e] give advance intimation to such authority or officer specified in this behalf by the State Government regarding the movement in this behalf; [f] equip with necessary warning signals such as red flags in the day time, read light and reflectors in the night so as to indicate the extreme positions of the vehicles clearly; [g] move without any hindrance to the normal flow of traffic; [h] not exceed the speed limit of 16 kms. per hour. [2] Where any damage is caused to the roads or road structures directly or indirectly due to the movement of such vehicles, the operator of the vehicle or the transporter shall be liable to pay such amount to the State Government as may be assessed by the authorities in this behalf. [3] The State Government shall not be liable for any damage that may be caused to such vehicles or their contents through their transits. [3] The State Government shall not be liable for any damage that may be caused to such vehicles or their contents through their transits. [4] Any grant of exemption under these rules shall be without prejudice to the rights of the authorities specified in this behalf by the State Government to regulate or stop the movement of such vehicles having regard to the safety of roads, bridges, structures and other road users. [5] The State Government may, in consultation with the operator of the vehicles or the owner, conduct route survey to assess the fitness of the roads for movement of such vehicles, feasibility of negotiating the curves more particularly in built-up areas, sufficiency or road width, adequacy of vertical clearance and deficiencies identified in the assessment shall be rectified by the operators or owners of the vehicles. [6] Exemption granted under these rules shall be applicable only for operating such vehicles on roads lying within the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department of the respective State Department and operators of the vehicles or their owners thereof shall make their own arrangements to obtain the approval of the other Departments of local body authorities for plying on the roads lying within theirs jurisdiction. 3. Removal of doubts: For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any exemption granted under these rules in any State shall be valid throughout India.” 10. As far as order dated 22.12.2006 under which the vehicles were exempted is perused, a specific condition was imposed granting the exemption within a limits of State of Maharashtra in view of the provisions of Rule 2 of the Overall Rules, 1991. If such condition has been imposed by the Home Department, State of Maharashtra, the petitioner company could have challenged before the appropriate Court in the State of Maharashtra. 11. As far as other prayers are concerned, I am of the opinion that there is no need to pronounce any judgment and order on this issue. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Direct service is permitted. 12. Mr. P.S. Champaneri, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, states that he has no instructions from the petitioner company about any application moved by the petitioner company or not.