Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
MCA/1724/2005 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR EXTENTION OF TIME No. 1724 of 2005
In
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR EXTENTION OF TIME No. 1104 of 2005
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13308 of 2004
With
MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 1104 of 2005
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13308 of 2004
==============================================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 5 - Applicant(s)
Versus
ACADEMY
OF TRAUMATOLOGY (INDIATHROUGH TRUSTEE HARSH S SHAH & 3 -
Opponent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance
:
Mr Arun Oza, GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 6.
MS AMRITA M THAKORE for Opponent(s) : 1,
MR
HS MUNSHAW for Opponent(s) : 2,
MR MAULIN R RAVAL for Opponent(s)
: 2,
None for Opponent(s) : 3,
MR JITENDRA MALKAN for
Opponent(s) :
4,
==================================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KSHITIJ R.VYAS
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA
Date
: 07/09/2005
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA)
State
Government has come before us yet with another application seeking
extension of the time limit for implementation of the direction of
this court requiring the drivers of two
wheelers to put on head gear (helmet) in accordance with rule 129 of
the Motor Vehicles Rules upto 1st January, 2006. So far
as the areas of municipal corporations are concerned. It has further
prayed that time limit for such implementation be extended upto 1st
February, 2006, so far as the areas under municipalities are
concerned and upto 1st March, 2006, for rural areas. The
extension has been sought solely on the ground that considering the
number of vehicles, availability of head gear (helmet) is falling
very short and, therefore, the strict implementation of the said
directions of this Court is not possible. In the application it has
been pointed out to us that several measures have been taken by the
State Government to see to it that adequate number of helmets are
available to the users of two wheelers. However, despite its sincere
efforts, the requirement is still not fulfilled. It is stated by
the applicant State that around 35,50,000 helmets would be required
for full compliance of the directions.
2. We
have heard Mr A D Oza, learned Government Pleader and Mr Maulin
Raval, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2. We have also
perused the contents of the application. Over and above that Mr Oza
has brought our attention to a fax message received by him during
the course of the hearing wherein the efforts put in by the State
Government to procure helmets as well as what steps are
contemplated by the Government to ensure adequate supply of helmets
to the users of two wheelers are stated. The same is ordered to be
taken on record. Mr Oza has reiterated the averments made in the
application by way of his submissions explaining the enormous
difficulties faced by the law enforcing agency in implementing the
directions on account of paucity of adequate number of helmets. He
has stated before us that the different measures that have already
been taken by the State Government for
procuring the adequate number of helmets. He has submitted that
despite the earnest efforts put in by the State, it is unable to meet
the requirement. As against that Mr Maulin Raval has submitted that
he has no objection to granting of extension but in his submission,
if extension as prayed for in the application is granted, the
directions issued by this court will lose its efficacy and it will
give wrong signals in the public at large. He has further
submitted that the court should make it clear that the law regarding
use of head gear/helmet by the users of two wheelers is not enacted
or made by this Court but this court only directed the Government to
enforce the statutory provisions which is already in existence.
3. Having
considered the contents of the application and having heard the
learned advocates for the State as well as for respondent no.2, it
appears to us that the State Government is facing genuine difficulty
in getting the directions implemented. However, we are in total
agreement with the submissions made by Mr Raval that if undue
relaxation is given, the direction will lose its efficacy and the
people at large will be tempted to flout it. If that happens, in our
opinion, not only the direction of this
court but also the statutory provisions will lose their sanctity.
This court has directed strict implementation of Rule 129 of the
Motor Vehicles Rules only in the interest of public at large and to
ensure safety of the users of two wheelers. This court will hardly
think of putting the people in difficulty or pass such directions
which may create hardship for them. It is
true that considering the number of two wheelers in the State, the
quota of helmets available at present may not be adequate and many of
the users may not be in a position to purchase them on account of its
non-availability. But at the same time, we have to also see that
the effect that has been created uptill now and a judicial notice can
also be taken of it that in the cities like Ahmedabad, Vadodara,
Surat and on the highways about 90 to 95% of the users of two
wheelers have started complying with the directions of this court by
putting on the head gear. Unduly long extension would erase the
effect of it and would result into large scale non-compliance. In
view of the same, the request made by the State Government to
implement the direction phase wise as stated above, is turned down.
As observed above, this is one more application seeking extension of
the time. On previous occasion also we have granted extension for
three months as per the request made by the State Government. In our
opinion, whatever the steps that are now sought to be taken by the
State, ought to have been taken much
earlier, but nonetheless, when the State has assured us that with
all sincerity it will try to tackle the problem, we think it fit to
grant extension upto 30th November, 2005. By that time,
the State Government should make all the efforts to procure adequate
number of helmets and to provide them to the users of two wheelers.
We may make it clear that the extension has been granted in respect
to the areas under municipal corporations, municipalities and the
rural areas only and not in respect to the high ways. We also make
it very clear that no further extension in
any circumstance, on this ground will be granted to the State.
This
application is accordingly disposed of.
[Kshitij
R Vyas, J.]
[Akshay
H Mehta, J.]
msp
Top