CHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issues involved in these two cases are identical and hence they are being dealt with and disposed of by this common judgment

(2.) The main question relates to the interpretation of the provisions contained in R.100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules') dealing with safety glass on wind screens and windows of motor vehicles. S.110(l)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') authorises the Central Government to make rules with respect to the use of safety glasses including prohibition of the use of tinted safety glasses. In exercise of the said power the Central Government framed R.100 prescribed the usage of safety glass for wind screens and windows of motor vehicles other than agricultural tractors.

(3.) The petitioner in O.P. No. 8127 of 1991 against the judgment of which W.A. No. 919 of 1991 has been filed, is the owner of an ambassador car and the proprietor of a business unit known as "M/s. Kumara Pillai Enterprises "whereas the petitioner in O.P. No. 8901 of 1991 is the owner of a maruti van and proprietor of an automobile workshop known as "Auto Plaza". The petitioner in O.P. No. 8127 of 1991 firstly challenged the validity of R.100. Secondly he prayed for a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to the decision regarding the enforcement of the ban of using tinted glasses on motor vehicles as published in Ext. P1. Thirdly it is prayed for a direction to the respondents to continue to permit the use of tinted glasses on motor vehicles. The petitioner in O.P. No. 8901 of 1991 prayed for a direction to strike down all statutory rules, provisions and executive instructions which insisted that the colour glasses and sun control device on wind screen and windows of motor vehicles be removed. He also prayed for a direction restraining the respondents from insisting on removal of colour glasses and sun control films on wind screens and windows on motor vehicles.