( 1 ) THE petitioners in this batch of petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, have questioned the action of the respondent authority in insisting on compliance of the provisions of Rule 126 of the Central Motor vehicles Rules, 1989 (c. M. C. Rules for short ). Since common questions are involved in all the petitions, upon a joint request, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE main question in this group of petitions is the applicability and interpretation of the provisions of Rule 126 of the C. M. V. Rules. In order to appreciate the merits of these petitions, it would be necessary to have a close look into the factual scenario and matrix emerging from the record of the present case. Substantially, common facts may be noted first. The petitioners are dealing in manufacturing or assembling of autorickshaws. Every year, about 1200 autorickshaws (popularly known as "chhakdas") are made or assembled by the petitioners and about 30,000 persons are directly or indirectly employed in such work. Factual Matrix With History :

( 3 ) IN one of the petitions, it is stated that the price at the relevant time came to about Rs. 35,000. 00 per vehicle. Some of the petitioners have been dealing in business of assembling of rickshaws since long. Some of them have also obtained licences under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Some of the petitioners have also relied on the historical background which has led to thriving of business of assembling of rickshaws. According to the petitioners case, in the year 1956, at the time of formation of the erstwhile State of Saurashtra, the manufacturers and assemblers of such vehicles were encouraged by the then Government of the State of Saurashtra and in particular the then Chief Minister Shri Dhebar, to locally manufacture and assemble such autorickshaws. Such vehicles were being sold all over the country. Due to long experience, the vehicles had become very popular because they were not only cheap in price but also economical to run. With the great encouragement from the then Government of Saurashtra and thereafter on formation of the State of Gujarat since 1960 the business of manufacturing and assembling of rickshaws was thriving in various parts of Saurashtra and particularly in the city of Jamnagar etc. and thereby the State Government as well as Central government earned huge amount by way of direct and indirect taxes.

( 4 ) THE petitioners have also inter alia contended that registration of assembled rickshaws was being done as per the provisions of Sec. 36 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1939 (old Act for short) and the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 (old Rules for short) and checking of designs of locally manufactured trailers was being done as per the provisions of Rule 217 of the old Rules. Thereafter, the Director of transport was submitting applications and copies of documents to the Lalbhai dalpatbhai College of Engineering, Ahmedabad Centre (LDE College-for short) for verification and recommendation of the greatest laden and axle weights in respect of the trailers which are compatible with reasonable safety. After the approval of the design as per the provisions of old Rule 217, assembling of rickshaws was being done as per the old Act and the old Rules.

( 5 ) IN short, the contention of the petitioners is that under the provisions of Sec. 36 of the old Act, the petitioners were required to supply Form f as set forth in the first schedule signed by the maker of the vehicle or an assembler duly authorised by the maker in this behalf stating the greatest laden weight and greatest axle weights. According to the petitioners, under the Old Rule 217, application for approval of a new design of trailer manufactured in India and intended to be used as a Transport vehicle had to be sent to the Director of Transport by the manufacturer and he, in turn, would forward the application to the LDE-College for verification and recommendation of the gr