DILEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner before us is a small time trader and has nothing to do with the business of helmets. He owned a light motor vehicle and the same is used for his commutation from place to place. According to him, he abides by all the traffic rules and always uses the helmet as a habit. He proposes that wearing of helmet, which is compulsory to the rider of two wheeler, also must be made compulsory to the pillion rider in order to ensure safety of pillion rider. According to him, due to recent directions issued by 3rd respondent-Transport Commissioner to the Motor Vehicle Department as well as to the traffic police, coercive steps are taken by canceling licences of two wheeler riders indiscriminately without adhering to any procedure or statute whenever they find a rider riding the two wheeler without wearing helmet. This, as a matter of fact was published in the newspaper reporting, nearly 856 such cases being registered in the State of Kerala and out of the said 856 cases, licences were cancelled in 272 cases. Therefore, the petitioner contends, invoking sub clause (f) of Clause (1) of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to cancel the licence is nothing but illegal, arbitrary and violative of legal provisions. With these averments, he has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:

(2.) The 3rd respondent who, is the Transport Commissioner, has filed a detailed counter affidavit bringing on record the situation so far as allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. They have narrated how the Government of India after a detailed study report found that it would be in the interest of the general public, wearing headgear as a protective measures for the riders of the two wheelers, came to be introduced as the same would reduce the severity of the head injuries during the accidents. According to study report of the Central Government, using of helmet definitely reduced severity of injuries in the accident involving two wheelers as it was made a mandatory provision. They have narrated at paragraphs 8 and 10 how exactly the situation is improved by measures taken up by the Transport Department in the State of Kerala in accordance with the Central Motor Vehicles Rules read with clause (f) of sub section (1) of Section 19 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Paragraphs 8 and 10 reads as follows ;

(3.) Reading of averments in the writ petition and the counter affidavit answering the allegations we find that the main concern of the petitioner seems to be cancellation of licenses and according to him, there is indiscriminate exercise of power by the authorities in canceling licences of two wheelers without adhering to provisions of either statutes or rules. At paragraphs 8 and 10, 3rd respondent has clearly mentioned that only in cases where riders of two wheelers are found driving two wheelers recklessly and carelessly without wearing helmets, only when plying the vehicle beyond the maximum speed limit of 50 km/hr, such steps to disqualify the licences for a temporary period are adopted and it is not adopted as a general measure in all cases. They categorically submit no licence came to be suspended, as narrated at paragraph 10, on the ground of non wearing of helmet alone. Such measure will be taken only if the vehicle was run beyond the maximum limit of 50 km/hr.