M.C.JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THERE has been a decision by a Division Bench of this Court in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1742/88 (Santosh v. State of Rajasthan) decided on July 18, 1988 by Jaipur Bench(l) The Division Bench has up-held the validity of rule 255-A of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951, whereby a provision was made for using of protective headgears and the State Govt, has issued Notification ESR 35 dated 6-11-87 in exercise of the power conferred by rule 255-A. The Division Bench considered the Notification issued by the Central Govt, dated May 14, 1980, whereby Nov. 1, 1980 was fixed to be the date on which the provisions of Sec. 85-A of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act (No. XXVII of 1977) would come into force. But by another Notification dated October 31, 1980, the earlier Notification dated May 14, 1980, fixing the date of enforcement of Sec. 85-A as November 1, 1980 was cancelled. The Division Bench took the view that this means that Section 85-A of the Act has not yet come into force and on the basis of the provisions contained in Section85-A of the Act, it cannot be said that the State Government is not empowered to frame rules with regard to wearing of protective headgears by persons driving motor vehicles and the Central Government alone is competent to frame such rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this question has not been examined by the Division Bench that once the power to issue Notification has been exercised by the Central Government, that power exhausted and a second Notification dated October 31, 1980 could not have been issued by the Central Government and as such, Section 85-A had come into force and which will continue to remain in force despite the second Notification dated October 31, 1980. It is not necessary for us to examine this question as the Division Bench of this Court has taken the above view of the matter and on that basis, it can be said that Section 85-A has not yet come into force in view of the second Notification dated October 31, 1980. Counsel for the petitioner further urged that under rule 255-A, power has further been delegated for prescribing the specification of the protective headgears to the Bureau of Indian Standard. The Bureau of Indian Standard is a recognized institute for fixing the standard of manufactured articles and it is a body of experts in different branches. Allowing the specification power to the Bureau of Indian Standard by the rule making authority, in our opinion, is no further delegation and it cannot be said to be, in any way. unreasonable. No other point has been raised before us.
(3.) IN the result, this writ petition has no force, so, it is hereby dismissed.;