GYAN PRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the respondent No. 6, Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers, for grant of permission to direct the respondents to register motor cycles sold by manufacturers in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

(2.) THE background facts leading to filing of this application are that Writ Petition No. 6969/2006 was filed as Public Interest litigation by the petitioner stating that a number of road accidents leading to deaths has been taking place in recent years in India calling for concerted and multi-disciplinary preventive and remedial measures. In paragraph 4. 30. 10 of the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that for the death due to motor cycles, the State of Madhya Pradesh is responsible because the registering authorities have been registering the motor cycles in violation of the provisions of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act')and in particular Section 44 of the Act. In paragraph 5. 15 of the writ petition, the petitioner has quoted Rule 123 of the Central motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, (for short 'the cmv Rules') titled "safety devices in motorcycle", which provides that no motor cycle which has provision for pillion rider, shall be constructed without provision for a permanent hand grip on the side or behind the driver's seat and a foot rest and a protective device covering not less than half of the rear wheel so as to prevent the clothes of a person sitting on the pillion from being entangled in the wheel. The petitioner has prayed inter-alia that registration of motor cycles in violation of Rule 123 of the CMV rules be immediately banned by the State of Madhya Pradesh.

(3.) ON 6-3-2007 the petitioner filed LA. No. 2186/2007 alleging that manufacturers are violating Rule 123 of the CMV Rules to promote sales, thus endangering the life of pillion riders inasmuch as they do not provide in motor-cycles hand-grips and protective devices to prevent entanglement of clothing/legs in the rear wheel. In the writ petition, the petitioner has further alleged that as a result of violation of Rule 123 of the CMV Rules, approximately 1000 young persons were being killed annually in madhya Pradesh. The petitioner accordingly prayed that the Court should immediately ban sale and registration of motor cycles which violates Rule 123 of the CMV rules in not providing the protective device covering not less half of the rear wheel and permanent hand-grip for the pillion rider and that the Court should direct the dealers to replace the motor cycles already sold. On 26-11-2007 the Court after considering the large number of accidents taking place because of non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 123 of the CMV Rules directed as an interim measure that no motor cycle, which does not comply with the requirements of rule 123 of the CMV Rules, will be registered by the registering authorities in the state of Madhya Pradesh.