A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Constitutional validity of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles (Conditions for Vehicles Engaged in Transport of School Children) Rules, 2012 (for short, 'the Rules') has been questioned in this writ petition. The material facts are that the Parliament enacted the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) (for short, 'the Act'). Section 96 of the Act empowers the State Governments to make Rules for the purpose of Chapter V Government of Karnataka in exercise of the power conferred by clause (xxxiii) of Section 96(2) read with Section 212 of the Act made the Rules under a Notification No. SARIE 01 SAEPA 2011, dated 18-1-2013 (Annexure-D). The Rules have come into force on 1-5-2013. 'School Cab' as per Rule 2(1)(c), means, a contract carriage with seating capacity not exceeding 12+1 complying with the requirements with valid permit issued under Section 74 of the Act. The Rules stipulate that no owner or operator of a motor vehicle shall permit the use of the vehicle as a Transport Vehicle for carriage of School Children unless he carries a valid contract carriage permit issued under Section 74 of the Act, permitting the use of the vehicle for the said purpose. Rule 6 is with regard to the conditions to be observed by the owner or operator of the motor vehicle. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 stipulates that the age of the vehicle shall not be more than Fifteen (15) years from the date of its initial registration as on the date of entry to transport school children.

2. The petitioner-T.J. Damodara, is the owner of a Maxi Cab bearing Registration No. KA-05-B-5067, which is of 1992 model, with seating capacity of 12+1, covered with permit No. Maxi/2301/2000, issued on 18-2-2000 and renewed on 18-12-2010, valid upto 17-12-2015. The petitioner used the said vehicle for carrying the school children of Bishop Cotton School, Bangalore. He is aggrieved by the age of the vehicle fixed as per sub-rule (2) of the Rule 6, at Fifteen (15) years, from the date of its registration.

3. In justification of the impugned Rule, respondents have filed statement and additional statement of objections. It has been stated that, on 16-12-1997, Apex Court issued certain directions in the case of M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 2001 SC 201 , regarding safety aspects in buses carrying school children. Reference has also been made to W.P. No. 39591 of 2012, wherein, on 16-1-2013, a direction was issued to place on record, an action plan, on how the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court on ensuring safety of School Children commuting between school and home, in school buses/vehicles are being implemented, not only in the city of Bangalore but in the State. One of the information sought was as to whether each of the vehicle comply the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. Reference has also been made to a scheme framed by the Government of NCT of Delhi for regulating the motor cabs used for carrying School Children, wherein, it has been stipulated that the age of the vehicle should not be more than years from the date of its initial registration.

4. Sri S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner inter alia contended that:

(a) The Act posited the power to make Rules by way of delegated legislation in the State Governments, as well as the Central Government and the delegate in respect of those powers is given a specified role to enact Rules and such power is not an executive Act but a legislation function. He submitted that the power to make Rules has been conceded in favour of the State Governments in Sections 28, 38, 65, 96, 107, 111, 138 and 176 of the Act.

(b) Section 59 of the Act deals with fixing of the age of the motor vehicles and the provision being specific, ensures power only in Central Government and hence, it is the Central Government alone which is empowered, authorised and enabled to fix the age of the motor vehicles and not in any State Government.

(c) Since the im