K VEERESH BABU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Reliefs sought for by each of the petitioners in the following writ petitions are as detailed below. W.P. No. 17519/89 (a) Writ in the nature of certiorari declaring that the impugned Rule 230 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules based on Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and final pronouncement or paper notification by respondent No. 4 as null and void and ultra vires the Constitution or any other direction. W.P.17997/89 (a) To strike down Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as unconstitutional and the notification given under Annexure-A be quashed by a writ of certiorari and for such other writ or order or direction. W.P. 18344/89 (a) Declare the provisions of Section 129 of the Act and the Rule 230 of the Rules, as ultra vires of the Constitution. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction in the nature of a writ not to enforce the provision of Section 129 and Rule 230 against the petitioners or others who drive or ride the motor cycle. W.P. 24862/93 (a) To hold Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as ultra vires and also to consequently strike down Rule 230 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. (b) To consequentially direct the 2nd respondent not to insist upon wearing of a protective headgear (Helmet) (c) allow the writ petition with costs. W.P. No.27205/93 (a) Declare the provisions of Section 129 of the Act and the Rule 230 of the Rules as ultra vires of the Constitution. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction in the nature of writ not to enforce the provisions of Section 129 and Rule 230 against the petitioners or others who drive or ride the Motor Cycle. W.P. No. 27968/93 (a) declare Section 129 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as ultra vires and consequently strike down Rule 230 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. (b) direct the respondents 2 and 4 not to insist upon wearing of protective head gear (helmet) on the petitioner and the public. (c) Issue any such other writ, order or direction. Since common questions arise for consideration in all the above writ petitions, the following common order is passed. Counsel on record argued the matter on merits. 1A. Before dealing with the contentions advanced, it is apt to refer to the objects of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 consolidates and amends the law relating to Motor Vehicles, various Committees like National Transport Policy Committee, National Police Commission, Road Safety Committee, low powered two wheelers Committee were constituted to go into different aspects of road transport for purposes of updating, simplification and rationalisation of law relating to transports. A working group was also constituted to submit its proposals for a comprehensive legislation after reviewing the law in question to make it relevant to modern day requirements. In the light of proposals, recommendations of various committees and groups, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was enacted coming into force on 1-7-1989. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with control of Traffic such as limits of speed, limits of weight and limitations on use, parking places and halting stations, Driving regulations, duty to obey traffic signs, signals and signalling device, safety measures for drivers and pillion riders, wearing of protective headgear, duty to produce licences and certificate of Registration, duty to take precautions at unguarded railway level crossings, schemes to be framed for investigation of accident cases and wayside amenities power of central and State Governments to frame rules. Area of confrontation in these writs is about the legality and efficacy of Section 129 (Section 85A of the Act IV of 1939 of the Act) read with Rule 230 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules. Section 129 of the Act reads:-

(2.) The petitioners contend that the notification issue by the authorities making it compulsory to the two wheeler riders to wear helmets while plying the vehicles as being arbitrary having no reasonable nexus to the object to be achieved, and being beyond the legislative competence and inequitable while enforcing the same. There are two schools of thought one in favour of such regulations making of wearing of helmets compulsory to two wheeler riders and others who are in disfavour of the same.

(3.) Petitioners belong to school of thought opposing the rules regulations, notifications, which make wearing of helmet compulsory. Petitioners contend the following: