Order : Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of sub-rule (3) and (5) of Rule 158 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules, 1994'). Sub-rule (3) and (5) were introduced vide amendment dated 31.12.2013. Rule 158 of the Rules, 1994 deals with the seating room to be provided in a bus, and reads as follows:- "158. SEATING ROOM-(1) The minimum seating space, back rest and gang-way etc. to be provided in public service vehicle, other than motor-cab or maxicab deployed as Ordinary service, shall be as follows:- * * * * * * * * * * (3) Subject to the specifications of berth mentioned in rule 170-A(b), there may be provided berths in the lower half side or upper side or both upper and lower side, of the bus, Ordinary/Deluxe, opposite driver side in single bearth row, and in remaining area of the carpet-area (floor space) the maximum number of seats as per specifications of seat in this rule shall be provided. This sub-rule shall not be applicable to a vehicle less than 205 inches wheel-base. * * * * * (5) Nothing contained in this rule shall apply to a vehicle registered before the date of coming in to force of this rule, provided that the body may be reconstructed only within twenty four months from the date of such coming in to force, for complying the provisions under this rule. However, where the owner of a public service vehicle failed to comply the provisions of this sub-rule after twenty four months from coming in to force of this rule, the registration certificate of that vehicle shall be suspended by the Registering Authority. Thereafter, on compliance of the provision, the suspension may be revoked by that Authority. Such suspension of registration of such vehicle shall be informed to all Checking Authorities and concerning police stations." 2. The challenge is to sub-rule (3) and (5). Sub-Rule (3) provides that subject to specification of berths some berths may be provided in a bus. The last portion of this sub-rule makes it clear that this sub-rule shall not be applicable to a vehicle having less than 205 inches wheel-base. As such berths/sleepers cannot be provided in a bus having wheel base of less than 205 inches. Sub-Rule (3) provides that subject to specification of berths some berths may be provided in a bus. The last portion of this sub-rule makes it clear that this sub-rule shall not be applicable to a vehicle having less than 205 inches wheel-base. As such berths/sleepers cannot be provided in a bus having wheel base of less than 205 inches. The Rule making Authority has decided that sleepers will not be permitted in a bus having a wheel base of less than 205 inches. Sub-rule (5) carves out an exception in respect of those buses which had been registered before coming into force of the Rule i.e. 31.12.2013. The transporter has been given a time of 24 months from the date of coming into force of the amended Rule to make suitable modifications to his bus. It is further provided that if within 24 months, the transporter does not comply with the Rule, then the registration of the vehicle shall stand suspended. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the Petitioner wants to withdraw this petition, but we have heard the matter for more than 25 minutes and cannot permit him to do so and proceed to decide the petition on merits. 4. No person including the Petitioner challenged this Rule when it was incorporated as far back as 31.12.2013. The Petitioner took the risk of running his buses without complying with the amended Rule. After the period of 24 months expired, when fine was imposed upon him, he approached this Court. In our view, this petition is belated. 5. Moreover, on merits, we find no merit in this petition. The main challenge of the Petitioner is that it is retrospective in nature and is harsh on persons who have already registered their buses prior to the date of amendment of the rule. We are not in agreement with the submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the amendment is retrospective in nature. The amendment is not only prospective but it also further gives another period of 24 months to the transporter to comply with the rule. We are not in agreement with the submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the amendment is retrospective in nature. The amendment is not only prospective but it also further gives another period of 24 months to the transporter to comply with the rule. The period of two years is more than reasonable time granted to the transporter to decide whether he wants to continue in the transportation business or to decide whether it is worth his while to run the buses without sleeper or whether he should sell his buses because it would not be economically viable to run them. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner urged that this is an extremely harsh condition. Reliance was placed on a judgment of the Apex Court in National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. & Another v. Union of India & Others { (2003) 5 SCC 23 }. In this case, the Apex Court held as follows: "15. The legislative power either to introduce enactments for the first time or to amend the enacted law with retrospective effect, is not only subject to the question of competence but is also subject to several judicially recognized limitations with some of which we are at present concerned. The first is the requirement that the words used must expressly provide or clearly imply retrospective operation. The second is the retrospectivity must be reasonable and not excessive or harsh, otherwise it runs the risk of being struck down as unconstitutional. The third is apposite where the legislation is introduced to overcome a judicial decision. Here the power cannot be used to subvert the decision without removing the statutory basis of the decision." 7. In our opinion, reliance placed on this judgment is totally misplaced. The legislature has the power to make any law retrospective. However, if it decides to make the law retrospective, it should be provided or should be clearly implied from the language. It is true that retrospective effect normally should not be given to a law which would be excessively harsh. In our opinion, in the present case, the law cannot be said to be harsh. 8. It is for the State and Transport Department to decide which bus should be permitted to have a 'Sleeper' in it. It is true that retrospective effect normally should not be given to a law which would be excessively harsh. In our opinion, in the present case, the law cannot be said to be harsh. 8. It is for the State and Transport Department to decide which bus should be permitted to have a 'Sleeper' in it. This decision is to be taken by the experts and the Court does not exercise its power of judicial review in such matters. The argument of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that wheel-base of 205 inches has been fixed without any basis, is totally erroneous. From the Rule, we find that there is classifications of vehicles in three types and these classifications are wheel base of 166 inches, 205 inches and 210 inches. Therefore, wheel base of 205 inches is a classification introduced while fixing the number of seats. The same classification can also be used to decide whether the bus should have 'Sleeper' in it or not. 9. As far as retrospectivity is concerned, as already been held by us above, the amendment is not retrospective in nature merely because it affects persons who are already in the transport business does not mean that the law is retrospective. 10. The law is prospective in nature because it operates from the date when it comes into force when it is enacted. Merely because the law affects some persons who are already doing business does not make it retrospective. The period of two years was given to the existing transporters to remodel their buses. In our opinion, there was a sufficient period of time and even if for a sake of argument, it is assumed that the amendment was retrospective, it cannot be termed to be harsh because more than sufficient time was given to the bus operators to modify their buses. 11. In view of the above, we uphold the validity of Rule 158 of the Rules, 1994. We find no merit in the petition. It is dismissed accordingly.