ORDER : SANJAY YADAV, J. 1. With consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is finally heard. 2. Order dated 01.12.2010 passed by District Magistrate, Sagar, is being questioned vide this petition. 3. Vide impugned order traffic movement of 4 Wheeler Heavy Vehicles, viz., Truck, Mini Truck, Tractor Trolly, Metador, Bus, Minibus, and Cars has been restricted from 7 a.m. To 10 p.m. Between Teenbatti to Kotwali in the interest of public safety, convenience. 4. The impugned order as evident therefrom is in purported exercise of power under Section 115 of M.P. Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 5. Complaining of inconvenience being caused to the Staff members who reaches the head office of the petitioner en-route, Civil Lines Duffrin Hospital Gurumurti Teen Batti Kotwali, because of the impugned order petitioner calls in question the legal validity thereof, on the ground that same is not in consonance with the stipulations contained under Section 115 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Petitioner places reliance on the decision by a Division Bench in Ram Sahai Varma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another: AIR 1989 Madhya Pradesh 334 to substantiate the submission that unless notified in a gazette, the District Magistrate cannot restrict the use of vehicle. 6. Respondents have refuted the contentions. It is urged that the impugned decisions is taken in larger public interest in furtherance to the communication dated 18.06.2010 which emanated from the recommendation by the Traffic Inspector, Sagar, sent to Superintendent of Sagar through City Superintendent of Police Sagar to restrict heavy vehicles, four wheelers from Teen Batti to Kotwali from 7 am to 10 pm. The recommendation were examined at various level. The decision was thereafter taken to restrict the traffic vide impugned order. On these contentions respondents seek dismissal of petition. 7. Considered rival submissions. 8. There can be no cavil that the State Government or any authority authorized in this behalf by way of notification can prohibit or restrict the use of vehicles. Such power emanates from Section 115 of 1988 Act which provides for: "115-Power to restrict the use of vehicles. On these contentions respondents seek dismissal of petition. 7. Considered rival submissions. 8. There can be no cavil that the State Government or any authority authorized in this behalf by way of notification can prohibit or restrict the use of vehicles. Such power emanates from Section 115 of 1988 Act which provides for: "115-Power to restrict the use of vehicles. - The State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience, or because of the nature of any road or bridge, may by notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit or restrict, subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified in the notification, the driving of motor vehicles or of any specified class or description of motor vehicles or the use of trailers either generally in a specified area or on a specified road and when any such prohibition or restriction is imposed, shall cause appropriate traffic signs to be placed or erected under section 116 at suitable places: Provided that where any prohibition or restriction under this section is to remain in force for not more than one month, notification thereof in the Official Gazette shall not be necessary, but such local publicity as the circumstances may permit, shall be given of such prohibition or restriction." 9. The precise grievance raised by the petitioner is that without there being notification published in Gazette conferring such power on the District Magistrate, the power cannot be exercised. 10. Learned Government Advocate has commended to Rule 215 of The Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 which provides for: "215 - Power to restrict use of vehicle- In accordance with Section 115 of the Act, the District Magistrate may, within the jurisdiction prohibit or restrict the use of motor vehicles, driving of motor vehicles or of any specified class of motor vehicles or use of trailers specified area or specified road in the interest of public safety convenience or the condition of any road or bridge." 11. Evidently, the District Magistrate has been empowered to restrict the use of vehicle. 12. Evidently, the District Magistrate has been empowered to restrict the use of vehicle. 12. The Rules i.e., Rules of 1994 are duly notified vide No. F-8-1-90- VIII dated 4th August, 1994, published in M.P. Rajpatra (Asadharan), dated 6th August, 1994 p.728 (163) framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 28, 38, 65, 95, 96, 107, 111, 138, 159, 176, 211, and 213 of the Act of 1988. Since Rule 215 is a part of the Rules of 1994 which is duly notified, the condition stipulated under Section 115 of the Act of 1988 is satisfied. 13. The requirement of publication of notification in Gazette having been meted out, the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the District Magistrate has exercised the power without jurisdiction, must fail. 14. In Ram Sahai Varma v. State (supra) evident it is from paragraph 6 that the Division Bench was not apprised of Gazette Notification No. F-8-1-90- VIII dated 4th August, 1994, as would be of no assistance to the petitioner. 15. In view whereof, petition fails and is dismissed.