RAVI SHEKHAR BHARDWAJ Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PUBLIC Interest Litigation No. 87 of 2001 was filed in this Court in 29/08/2001 by eight petitioners. A prayer in the said petition is to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, directing the State of Maharashtra and its Officers to implement and enforce Sections 128 and 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1, as stated in the petition, is a law student. He was studying in the First Year of Master Degree in Labour Law and Labour Welfare Course at Symbiosis Law College, Pune when he approached this Court. Petitioner No. 2 is Honorary Director of an institution which organised health awareness programme and engaged in imparting medico-legal education. She is also a lawyer and doctor by profession. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 8 are students of the College studying in Five Years' Degree Course.

(3.) THE cause of filing the Public Interest Litigation Petition, according to the petitioners, was an incident which they witnesses on 15/08/2001. The petitioner No. 4 was returning to her hostel, after attending flag hoisting ceremony, where she saw an accident in which a youth of about 23 years of age was seriously injured in a road mishap on the busy Law College Road. Petitioner No. 4 was moved by the said incident and felt that serious injury sustained by the boy could have been avoided or at least minimised, had he used helmet. She then narrated the incident to her colleagues and seniors. All of them felt that some measures ought to be taken by the authorities to make wearing of helmet mandatory and compulsory for two-wheeler drivers as well as pillion riders. By use of such method, harm and damage to national health and wealth could be prevented. Some students, therefore, approached petitioner No. 2, Honorary Director of the Institute, and discussed the issue with her. Petitioner No. 2 in turn informed the students about the efforts made by her so that use of helmet be made compulsory. All of them felt that it was inaction on the part of the authorities in not making such provision and/or enforcing it despite several representations by different organisations and individuals and issuance of several notifications by the authorities. The petitioners then conducted intensive research, collected data of accidental deaths that had occurred due to non-wearing of helmets and proportion of head injuries caused in all such accidents to give a base to public interest litigation. They also found that a detailed report prepared by Dr. S. N. Sarin in 1995 wherein he had considered at length the issue of importance of helmet in reducing head injuries to the riders. It has been annexed to the petition at exhibit-A. The petitioners also came to know that some High Courts had issued directions making use of helmet compulsory and ordering the authorities to take appropriate action in enforcing them. Information was also collected regarding increase in number of deaths especially when two-wheeler riders did not use helmet. It was stated by the petitioners that in past few years, two-wheelers have emerged as a convenient, dependable and relatively inexpensive mode of conveyance, more because the public transport system was not able to keep pace with demand of growing population and need of society. It was stated that Pune, which is called the "oxford of the East", had attracted a large number of students not only from Maharashtra but from other States as well as from abroad. The student population is around two lakhs. Because of several two-wheelers, there are many accidents. According to the petitioners, Pune is having vehicle population of 9 lakhs, out of which 70 per cent are two-wheelers. It was stated; "there has been 500 per cent increase in accident on two-wheeler since 1986 and registration of two-wheelers has increased by 600 per cent since 1991".