ORDER

Permission to file special leave petitions is granted. Delay condoned.

Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

2. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court made in W.P. No. 6211/90 and batch, on December 21, 1991. All the appellants are owners of public carriers plying in the State of Andhra Pradesh and registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the Rules made thereunder. Their vehicles have 3 axles and are called Tauras Vehicles. It is their case that due to change in the size of the tyres of the front axles and the rear axle and the ply rating, the maximum self-laden weight got increased. Therefore, with permission of the Regional Transport Authority they have been plying the vehicles with increased laden weight from August 1988. But after March 31, 1990, they were interdicted on the ground that the weight was in excess of maximum permissible laden weight and maximum safe axle weight and as a consequence thereof their business of transporting goods has been interfered with unnecessarily. As this was being done under the Notification dated June 8, 1989 issued by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 58 of the Act they challenged the said Notification as ultra vires the provision of the Act. After the judgment of the High Court, the Rules came to be amended in 1994. When the appeals were preferred before this Court, by order dated February 1, 1996 this Court pointed out that the Central Government have to carry out the amendment to the Rules and the Schedule so as to bring them in conformity with the Amendment Act 54 of 1994. Time, when sought for to do the needful, was granted to the Government of India. As a result, now the notification has been issued on October 18, 1996 exercising the power under Section 58(1) of the Act and also appended explanatory note to the said notification.

3. S/Shri Sudhir Chandra, Rajiv Dhawan, Smt. Amareswari, learned senior counsel and Shri L.N. Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, contend that the notification issued by the Government, in particular the words "whichever is less" after the end of the three clauses, is in abdication of the power given to the Central Government under Section 58(1) which empowers the Central Government to prescribe the maximum gross vehicle weight and the maximum safe axle weight by way of an appropriate Notification. The impugned Notification after referring to the three indices has provided that the maximum gross vehicle weight and the maximum safe axle weight shall be out of these three indicated weights, whichever is less. By providing like that, it has, instead of fixing such weight itself, has either abdicated or delegated the power in favour of the manufacturer. The Notification, as it is, clearly indicates that the Central Government has not exercised its power properly but has left determination of maximum gross vehicle weight and the maximum safe axle weight to the manufacturers. It was, therefore, submitted that exercise of the power is thus not consistent with the provisions of the Act. Shri Rajiv Dhawan has further contended that the Registering Authority has been given free-hand either to register or refuse to register the vehicles which is not in conformity with the Schedule and that, therefore, the action would always in impediment to have the vehicle registered. Thereby, the Central Government have obviated the statutory power given under the Act.

4. Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the Union of India, on the other hand, contends that Section 58 should be read with the Rules. Chapter 7 of the Rules prescribes various circumstances enumerated in the matter of construction, equipment and maintenance of the motor vehicles. After taking into consideration all the relevant factors, namely, the maximum axle weight, size and ply rating of the tyres and all other relevant factors, the manufac