JUDGMENT : 1. In this petition, the petitioners seek issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 04.06.2018 issued by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Leh, whereby he has ordered that any vehicle not fitted with Speed Governing device would not be eligible for inspection for determining its fitness. 2. The petitioners have highlighted the fact that while they were willing to fulfill the requirement of SRO 50 dated 16.02.2016 issued by the Government of the Jammu & Kashmir with regard to installation of Speed Governing devices, the State Government should first ensure identification of vendors in the Ladakh region with a view to ensure easy availability of said devices. It is stated that that for the Leh District no vendor has been approved or authorized making it difficult for the petitioners to show compliance. 3. It appears that SRO 50 dated 16.02.2016 was issued by the Government in exercise of powers conferred under sub-rule (2) of Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, requiring every transport vehicle notified by the Central Government in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and registered prior to 1st October, 2015 which was not already fitted with Speed Governing device be fitted or equipped with such device on or before 1st April, 2016. 4. The aforementioned SRO appears to have been issued pursuant to the directions of the Apex Court in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors : (1997) 8 SCC 770 , where the court directed: - “(a) No heavy and medium transport vehicles, and light goods vehicles being four-wheelers, would be permitted to operate on the roads of the NCR and NCT, unless they are fitted with suitable speed-control devices to ensure that they do not exceed the speed limit of 40 kmph. This will not apply to transport vehicles operating on inter-state permits and national goods permits. Such exempted vehicles would, however, be confined to such routes and such timings during day and night as the police/transport authorities may publish. It is made clear that no vehicle would be permitted on roads other than the aforementioned exempted roads or during the times other than the aforesaid time without a speed control device.” 5. The aforementioned directions were subsequently sought to be implemented in Suraksha Foundation v. Union of India & Others writ petition (civil) No.793 of 2015. It is made clear that no vehicle would be permitted on roads other than the aforementioned exempted roads or during the times other than the aforesaid time without a speed control device.” 5. The aforementioned directions were subsequently sought to be implemented in Suraksha Foundation v. Union of India & Others writ petition (civil) No.793 of 2015. 6. It also appears that the Government of India issued the procedure and guidelines to be followed in the matter of installation of Speed Limiting Devices which are reproduced hereinbelow: - “In continuation of the guidelines dated 16.06.2016 and in supersession of all earlier communications regarding installation of Speed Limiting Devices, it is clarified that vehicle owner should be at his liberty to choose the Speed Limiting Devices from any source/vendor as long as it is duly type approved by any of the test agencies under rule 126 of CMVR. It is strongly recommended that the State Governments do not restrict the freedom of the vehicle owners to choose the type approved Speed Limiting Devices of any manufacturer. It will be the responsibility of the manufacturer to comply with the requirements of the AIR 018 along with the guidelines prescribed in the letter dated 16.06.2016. The State Government would have to ensure the effective implementation of the Notification for fitment of the Speed Limiting Device. The State Government may, however, choose to impose eligibility and price criteria while selecting the Vendors for fitment of Speed Governors on the vehicles owned by it or any Transport Undertakings, Corporations or a local authority under its control.” 7. A challenge was also thrown to SRO 50 dated 16.02.2016 through the medium of OWP no.1163/2016 which also came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 07.05.2018 by a coordinate Bench of this Court. 8. It thus appears that the requirement to get installed the Speed Governing devices is in tune with various directions issued by the Apex Court and in accordance with the requirement of the rules framed in terms of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and rules framed thereunder. With a view to ensure that the directions are complied with, the Ministry of Road and Transport and Highways by virtue of communication dated 2nd August, 2016, clarified that vehicle owner should be at liberty to choose the Speed Limiting Devices from any source/vendor as long as it is duly approved. With a view to ensure that the directions are complied with, the Ministry of Road and Transport and Highways by virtue of communication dated 2nd August, 2016, clarified that vehicle owner should be at liberty to choose the Speed Limiting Devices from any source/vendor as long as it is duly approved. The specifications of the Speed Governing device already appear to have been approved by the State Government as can be seen from the communication dated 2nd August, 2016 annexed by the petitioner with the present petition. 9. The petitioners cannot defeat the implementation of the directions issued by the Apex Court as also to refuse to comply with the requirement of rules requiring the installation of such Speed Governing devices only on the excuse that no vendors have been approved for the Leh District. It is not the case of the petitioners that the devices are not available but what was sought to be emphasized was that the vendors have not been approved for the Leh District and till such time the vendors are so approved the authorities should not refuse to grant the fitness certificates to the vehicles of the petitioners. This, in my opinion, is untenable in law inasmuch as in view of the clarification as contained in communication dated 2nd August, 2016 which clearly gives freedom to all vehicle owners to choose his vendor for supply of the device so long as the same is in accordance with the specifications provided by the Government. 10. In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed along with the connected MP.