( 1 ) THIS order shall govern disposal of the connected petition also, namely, Misc. Petition No. 386 of 1989 (Vishnu Datt Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh) as a common grievance is agitated by both petitioners regarding traffic problem in the city of Gwalior on a road facing this Court.

( 2 ) A return has come in this petition though in the other matter, there is no return as yet. However, both petitions being interlinked for analogous hearing, we have considered it appropriate to consider the stand of the respondents with respect to petitioners' common grievance and in that connection, we have read the return in appropriate perspective. But the short complaint of the petitioner, who is an Advocate of this Court, and the legal basis thereof may be stated firs The complaint is that the authorities, namely, the Collector and District Magistrate, Gwalior (respondent No. 1) and Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Gwalior (respondent No. 2) have arbitrarily and illegally restricted movement on the road aforesaid which, as per Annexure-R/2 of the return, is that the portion of the road which covers Inderganj (Ghoda Chowk) and runs up to "jinsi Nala Chouraha". Admittedly, that portion of the road is kept open to one-way traffic only and the undisputed position on facts is also that the road leads to Courts and educational institutions.

( 3 ) IT is submitted that the restriction has resulted in serious hardship and inconvenience particularly to students and lawyers but generally to people from all walks of life who have been using that road and plying ordinary vehicles thereon. They are put to great inconvenience, it is submitted, as the alternative route is not convenient at all and the restrictions are not " in the interest of public safety or convenience". It is submitted also that the provisions of S. 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and of R. 257 of M. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1974 are breached as the requirements thereof have not been fulfilled. Those are quoted :"74. 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 interests 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 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 S. 75 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. ""257. Power To Restrict Use of Vehicles : in accordance with S. 74 of the Act, the District Magistrate may, within his jurisdiction, prohibit or restrict the use of motor vehicles, driving of motor vehicles or of any specific class of motor vehicle or use of trailers in a specified area or specified road in the interest of public safety, convenience or the condition of any road or bridge. "( 4 ) WE have carefully gone through the averments made in the return and also the facts which appear in the annexures of the return. That on 25-5-1988, there was a meeting of Traffic Advisory Committee is clear from two Annexures. Indeed, as per minutes of the Meeting (Annexure-R/2), it appears that the impugned decision regarding restriction aforesaid was taken in that meeting. By Annexure-R/1, the Deputy Commissioner (Dev.), had sent copy of the minutes to Deputy Superintendent of Police (Traffic), for his information. The Meeting was presided over by the Co