The High Court · 2007

Rules, 2020 read with Article 256 ailLl 251 (l) of Consritution of India 7 r-,

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. (i. Aniketh Reddy learned Asst. Government Pleader (for short, 'AGP') for Horne appearing for respondent No. 1 and 2 and learned Dy. Solicitor General appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3 and perused the record.

3. The petitioner contends that a challan was issued against his two-wheeler bearing registration no. TS 07 GE 8435 on

24.01.2024 via the Telangana e-Challan systetn, fbr allegedly allowing a pillion rider withotrt a helmet; that a penalty of Rs. 100/- was irnposed, along with an additional Rs. 35i- terrned as "[Jser Charges", in all totalling Rs. l35l-; and that tfie levy & collection of additional charge of Rs. 35/- is illegal and arbitrary, as there is no statutory sanction under the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for,short MV Act,l988) or its. amendments allowing sLlch collection.

4. The petitioner contends that while the rule for'pillion rider to wear helmet stems frorn the Central Motor Vehicles (Arnendrnent) Act, 2019 (for short Arnendment Act, 2019), the same has not been notified by the State of Telangana artd therefore lacks enforceability within the State. Moreov'er, the t ) ) 3 charge of Rs. 35/- being levied by Respondent No. I under G.o. Ms- No. 307 dated 26.12.2007, towards e-Governance charges, is contrary to the provisions of the Central law and arnounts to unauthorized col lection.

5. The petitioner contends that the state has discontinued the offline challan payment mechanism, thereby forcing citizens to the Telangana police e-challan portal (https://echallan.tspolice.gov. in) and incur additional amount of Rs. 35/- as user charge per transaction; that this is in direct violation of Article 256 of the constitution of India, which mandates that state Governments comply with laws made by Parliarnent; that Central portal (https.i/echa llan. pari vzhan. gov. in), developed by Respopdent No. 3, no such charge is levied fee and the platform as developed and deployed under the Act and the Rules is the only auth orized portal under the central Motor vehicles Rules, 2020 (in short 'Rules, 2020').

6. The petitioner further contended that the central Motor vehicles Rules, 1989 were amended via G.s.R. 5g4(E) dated

25.a9.2020 (effective from 01.10.2020), introducing the terrn 4 "Portal", rrrandating States to use the Central Government's official platlbrm for vehicle-related services; that the continued irnposition of user charges by the State using its own platfonn is not only ultra vires the Central law but also unconstitutional and violative of citizens' rights; and that despite a representation dated 14.03.2024 being submitted requesting cessation of such charges, the respondents failed to respond.

7. The petitioner also contended that respondent No. I has deliberately disregarded the provisions of (i) the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (ii) the Motor Vehicles (Arnendrnent) Act, 2019, and (iii) the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 2020, and is irnposing illegal charges on citizens, causing financial hardship and violating statutory and constitutional mandate.

8. Pcr contra, learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l and 2 would submit that the contention of the petitioner regarding the enforcement of the pillion rider helmet rule being dependent upon the Central Motor Vehicles (Amendtnent) Act, 2019 is rnisconceived; that even in absence of the said Arnendrnent Act, 2019 not being notified or adopted by the State of 1'elangana, the provisions of Section 128 and lr29 of the ( ) 5 unamended MV Act, 1988, already address the safety lneasures for pillion riders, that Section 129 mandates every person driving or riding (other than in a sidecar) on a motorcycle in a public place to wear protective headgear, subject to exceptions; and thus, non-wearing of a helmet by a pillion rider constitutes a violation even under the pre-amended legal framework.

9. Ld. AGP further submitted that Telangana State police was among the first in the country to implernent the e-challan traffic enforcement and payment system, initiated in the year 2007 in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh; that the said system was developed in exercise of power and authority conferred under Section 136,4. of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Rule 167 and 167A of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989; that the system was created to eliminate cash handling and to curb malpractices; that G.O.'Ms. No. 307, dated 26.t2.2007, authorizing the collection of user charges at Rs. 35/- per e-challan is issued in exercise of power conferred under section 2l I of the MV Act, 1988; and that the systern has been widely accepted by the public, with approximately 80% of challans being paid through 6 online modes, including e-Seva, MeeSeva, net banking, T- wallets, UPI platforms, etc

10. Ld. AGP w'ould also submit that e-challan system was introduced to ensure that a motor vehicle user is not stopped on the spot and being issued with a challan for comrnitting violation of provisions of motor vehicle Act or the rules, that in the past when the respondent police tried to stop a violator for issuing a challan lor a violation, the violators in order to escape frorn being issued with challan have sped, causing accidents, that contrary to the petitir)ner's claim, the option for offline paylnent of challans is available at the Traffic compounding Booth, office of the AdditionaI comrnissioner of police, Traffic, Nampally, Hyderabad, in addition to on-the-spot payment; ulo that e- challan systern is introduced only to ensure that the vehicle user is not stopped on-the-spot on committing violation, but is infonned of the violation committed by capturing the image of the violati<tn through an e-challan. I l. Ld. AGP has also contended that earlier when violators are stoppecl arrd issued with challans on-the-spot causing delays, general public protested claiming that there is an ernergency or .7 ,) they getting delayed in the process of being issued with on-the- spot challans; that in order to address the aforesaid grievance the e-challan system has been developed using the technology; and that the petitioner instead of complying with the law and committing violation of provisions of Motor vehicle Act and the Rules cannot claim that the respondent authorities have to follow only a particular system or question the action oi respondents in deploying technology to prevent action being taken against violations under the Motor Vehicle Act and the Rules.

12. It is further contended by the respondents that the online payment system is not mandatory but rather an option for the convenience of citizens. The user charges of Rs. 35/- per e- challan are utilized towards expenses incurred in.r generating electronic challans, sending SMS notifications to vehicle owners, printing and posting challan notices, and franking charges, as stipulated under Rule 167 of the central Motor vehicle Rules,

1989. Notably, when challans are issued during contact enforcement (physical interaction), the user charge is not levied; only the statutory fine is collected. 8

13. t.d. AGP further contended that the current e-challan enforcement system in Telangana is a technology-driven, evidence-based, and cashless mechanism, introduced via G.O. Ms. No. 307 dated 26.12.2007 in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, and continued post bifurcation in Telangana due to its effectiveness and public utility. The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 2020 do not mandate the usage of a particirlar software or portal fbr challan issuance. Therefore, the use of the I'elangana e- Challan portal is neither illegal nor ultra vires, especially when the sarne is supported by statutory rules and a valid government order.

14. Ld. AGP would also submit that the user charges of Rs. 35i- per e-challan are being lawfully collected under the authority granted by G.O. Ms. No. 307 dated 26.12.2007; that Rule 167(l) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 empo\ ers uniformed police olficers authorized by the State Government to issue clrallans through physical or electronic means, and Rule 161(2) allows such clrallans to be auto-generated through electronic monitoring and enforcement systems.While the provisions of the Motor Vehicles lArnerrdrnent) Act, 2019 and tl-re Motor Vehicle -l 9 Rules, 2a20 have not been notified by the State, the enforcemerlt of existing provisions under the unamended Act and Rules continues lawfully. Therefore, the actions of the Respondents in irnposing traffic fines and collecting nominal user charges is legal, authorized, and in public interest.

15. I have taken note of the respective submissions made

16. At the outset since, the petitioner claims prior to Arnendrnent Act, 2019 being brought into force, there is no provision under the Central Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, mandating wearing of helmet by the pillion rider of a two wheeler, and that as the State of Telangana, did not notify the Amendment Act, 2019, no fine can be imposed, it would be useful to refer to the provisions of Section 128 and 129 of MV Act, 1988, rlhich read as under

128. Safety measures for diaers and pillion riders.- (1) No driaer of a fiao-wheeled motor cycle slull carry more than one person in addition to himself on tlrc rnotor cycle and no such person shall be caried otlrcrutise tlun sitting on a proper seat securely fxed to the motor cycle hehind the diaer's seAt uith appropiate safety measures. (2) In addition to tlrc safety measures mentioned in suh- section (1), the Central Gwernment may, prescibe otlrcr 10 safety measures for tlu driaers of two-wheeled motor cycles and ptllg nJdYIS the r eo n' L29. Wearing of Pro tectiae headgear'-EaerY Person se than in a side cAr, on a motor driaing or ricling (otlrc shall, while in a Publi c place, lrcadgear conforming to the standards ,f n0t 0r n a Toear Protecttue Bureau oJ'lndian Standards: Protsitledtl.mttlteprauisionsoftttissectionshallnotapplyto.a person rulro is o {i'ii, ,f tn ii, while driuing or iding on the '*oto, cycle, in a publii place' weaing a turban: Prouitleci f.trtlur tlmt the State Gwernment may' by such rules, prrrctide for suclt exceptions as it may think fit' a helmet Explanatiott. - "i'rotc:ctiue hintlgear" .means rulriclr, - fu) ht1 uirtue of its sl"pe' mateial and cttnstruction' couldreasonahhl-h"'p"t'rltoffirtltotlrcpersondriaingor ritling otr n motor c!'c|a a degrei, of protection f:o',n injury in the eaetft of an iirt*r, oia @'is securely fastened to the head of ttr, ,r'rol'i" i, nteans of straps or other fastenings proaided on tlu n oallo':' funi" lini'ng supplietl by court]

17. Frout a reading of Section 128 and 129 of MV Acq 1988' t itwouldbeclearthatwhilesectionl2SoftheMVAct'deals withsafetymeasuresfordriversandpillionriders,andmandates thatadriverofatwowlreelermotorcycleshallnotcarrymore thanonepersoninadditiontohirnselfandalsoempowersthe central Government to prescribe the safety measures for the driver of the two wheeler rnotor cycle and pillion rider thereon' f {

1.L

18. Section 129 of the MV Act, 1988, deals with safety rneasures, and provides for wearing protective headgear. Though tlre petitioner contended that the prescription in Section 129 of MV Act, 1988 for wearing a protective head gear is onry for a driver of two wheeler motor cycle and not for pillion rider, as there is no mention of pillion rider in the provision and rnention of driver or rider used in the provision is to be understood as one and the same, it is to be noted that the word 'rider' as used in Section 129 of the MV Act, 1988 would have to be referred along with section 128 of MV Act, 1988, which makes reference to 'pillion rider'. 1,9. Further, the use of the word 'rider' in Section 129 of MV Act, 1988 is qualified by the words 'on u motor cvcle'* signifies that the same is in relation to a 'pillion rider ', as it is pillion who rides on a motor cycle and not a driver who is riding the two wheeler motor cycle by himself. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the word 'driver' or 'rider' used in section 129 of MV Act, 1988 is to be understood as refening to one and the same in the opinion of this court does not merit consideration. \^ 72

20. [t is trite lar.v that any word employed in a statute is not superfluous or redundant and that Statute has to be c<lnstrued so that every word has a place and thing is in its place. I See : Grasim Industries Ltd. V. Collector of Customs, Bomboyl ; Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General F'tnance and Investment Co. Ltd.,2 ; Renaissance Hotel Hotdings Inc. v. B. Vtjaya Sai.3 1

21. Thus, even though the State has not notified the Amendment Act 2019, since, unamended Section 129 of the MV Act, 1998, categorically states that every person driving or riding on a two wheeler motor cycle shall in public place wear a protective headgear confinning the standards of Bureau of Indian standards, non wearing of a protective head gear (helmet) by the pillion rider constitutes violation, notwithstanding the proposed , arnendment, which is not notified. Further, the proposed amendrnent does not rnake a substantive change to the existing Section 129 ofMV Act, 1988 and only seeks to exclude persons ' lzoozy 4scczsT ' 1tssl1 1, scc 424 ' {zozz) s scc 1 I -I 13 upto the age of four years being covered by the said provision. Thus, the contention of the petitioner is wholly misconceived and thus, the action of respondents issuing a challan for pillion rider not wearing a helmet is valid

22. At this stage, it is worthwhile to note that in a Writ petition filed before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in Dr. C,S. Subba Rao v. Secretary to GovL of A.P.,a seeking for implernentation of provisions of Section 128 and 129 of MV Act, [988, the division bench speaking through Justice Sri. B Sudershan Reddy (as his Lordship then was), while rejecting the claim of the State of rnaking wearing of headgear optional under G.O. Ms. No. 303, dt. 23.12.1989, held as under :

10. A plain reading of Section 129 of the Act mdces it clear that eaery person uhile driuing or iding on a motorcycle of any class or description in a public place is required to wear protectiue headgear (lrclmet) conforming to the standards of Bureau of Indian Standards. The only exemption that is made is in fauour of a person who is a Sikh and that too if he is, tuhile driaing or iding on a motor cycle, in a.public place, wearing a turban ond no further exemption whatsoeoer is made in faaour of any other class of persons.

17. Howeuer, the State Gwernment is clothed with the pou)er to make rules for proaiding such exceptions as it may think o 2OO2 (5) ALT 458 = 2002 SCC ontine Ap 953

1.4 fit. The State gwernruent can always make rules and prwide fo, exceptions in the matter E zueaing of protectiae headgears.

72. In tlte counter ffidaait, it is not stated that the State Goaernnrent in exercise of its ntle mttking pozuer made any such rules making any such exceptions in its discrt:tion.

23. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court also took a sirnilar view in the case of R. Mathukrishnan & others v. Secretury, Home Dept, Govt. of Tamil Nodu (W P No. 18708 of 2007 & batch, dt. 3l .08.2007)5.

24. As regards the challenge to the imposition of user charges of Rs. 35/- on e-challan, this Court finds that such charges are being levied under G.O. Ms. No. 307 dated 26.12.2007, issued by the competent authority in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, and continued in the State of Telangana. The said trser charges are supported by Rule 167 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which recognizes the issuance of challans through electronic systems and perrnits for creation / puttlng in place necessary infrastrtrcture to that effect. [t is also brought on record that such user charges are not collected during phvsical traffic ' (zoot) s MU 13s1 r ( ') ) 15 enforcement and are levied only when the challan is generated through automated means.

25. Firstly, a citizen is expected to be a law abiding citizen. It is only when a citizen breaks the law or does not abide or obey . the rules, like in the facts of the present case, a pillion rider not wearing a protective headgear, he is visited with a challan for violation of Section 129 of the MV Act, 1988. Secondly, when a violation is committed, the person cornmitting the violation is available physically on the spot, a challan is issued, which can be paid then and there itself or by visiting the traffic compounding booth of the respondent without any additional charge which is otherwise called as offline payrnent method. on the other hand if the traffic violation is captured using the technology deployed by the respondents like capturing the irnage of violation using CCTV cameras etc., printing of the challan with the image captured of the violation, sending the challan by post, SMS alert on registered mobile number, requires certain equipment to be maintained and also updated frorn time to time. In order augment the expenditure to be incurred to maintain the aforesaid equipment and also print the challan with the image and sending 16 .Y the same by post and SMS alert on registered rnobile nurnber would not come free of cost, for the petitioner to clairn that he should be treated on par with a traffic violator who has been stopped and handed over with a challan for rnaking offline payrnent either on the spot or by visiting the traffic cornpounding booth, as these are two different types of handling 'of trafflc violations viz., (i) Physical mode and (ii) uSing electronic systems. T'hus, the claim of petitioner that citizens are cornpelled to pay user charges mandatorily is without valid basis and cannot be said as illegal and unauthorised.

26. Further, judicial notice can be taken of a recent incident, that had taken place on l3th April, 2025, when respondent authorities who were on traffic duties in Balana gar arera. tried to stop one Joshi Babu (Bose Babu) a 34 year old person and carpenter by profession, driving a two wheeler rnotor cycle, while attempting to evade police check, had skid fi'orn his motor cycle and I'ell on the road and a bus coming behind run over hirn. Such incidents can be avoided by deploying and using technology, in such cases irnposing a higher penalty is fully justified and cannot be said as either arbitrary or illegal. In ( I " '{+fi:'-:.' "?ry7 ' /'/ -ry -) 17 countries like United States of Arnerica traffic enforcement is done by using radar, LIDAR and some in occasions patrol helicopters are also used and heavy penalties are imposed on the violators, which is also linked to renewal of the vehicle insurance. Unfortunately, in our country there is no incentive to a safe driver and an unsafe driver.

27. [n so far as the clairn of the petitioner that as per arnended central Motor vehicle (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2020, where under certain definitions in Rule 2 of the Rules, 1989, have been amended by substituting clause (ca) with new clause defining "challan" and by explanation including E-challan issued in electronic form as 'challan' and insertion of clause (xa) defining the term "portal,", the e-challan is to be issued exclusively through the electronic based systern set up and maintained tiy the central Governrnent, it is to be noted that the Rule 167 introduced under the Arnendment Rule, 2o2o does not mandate the issuance of challan only though the portal set up and maintained by the Central government such as https:,,,,echallan. vahan.gov.irr On the other hand a reading of sub-rule (4) of Rule 167 indicates that what is required is, I 18 recording of challans issued under sub-rule ( I ) and (2) chronologically on a regular basis for access by enforcement authorities, itself shows the same is not mandatory'. [n the absence of a binding direction or rule to that effect, the continued use by the State's of its own portal for enforcemeltt purposes, backed by statutory rules and administrative orders, cannot be declared ultra vires

28. Further, it is settled position of law that having regard to Article 246 and Art. 254 of Constitution of India, the conflict in legislative competence of Parliament and State legislature, though in the facts of the present case such is not the sittntion, tlre Apex court in State of A.P. v. K. Purushotham Reddy & 6 others helcl as under :

79. .... Both tlrc parliamentary legislation as aLso the State legislation must be considered in such a rnarurcr so as to uphold both of them and only in a case uhere it rc fountl that both cannot coexist, the State Act may be declared ultra uires. Clause (1) of Article 246 of the Constitution of India does not proaide for the competence tf Parliament or the State Legislatures as is ordinaily understood but merely prouides for the respectiae legislatiae fields. Furthermort, the courts should proceed to construe a statute zuith a uiew to uplnld its constitr.ttionality. (See ITC Ltd. a. Agricultural Produce u lzoosy 9 scc 564 t 19 Market Corumittee [(2002) g scc 232 : AIR 2002 sc BS2l , Asstt. Director tf Inspection Inaestigationr,. A.B, shanthi K2002) o scc 2sgl , shri Krislma Gyinoday sugar Ltd,a state of Bihar K2003) 2 scare 226 : (2003) 4 sac sTal andWelfare Assn. A.R.p., Maluraslttrsrt. Ranjit p. Gohil [(2003) 2 Scale 288 : (2003) g SCC 3581 .)

29. The Apex court in M/s. Hoechst pharmaceuttcals Ltd-, v. state of BiharT, dealt with the interplay between.the entries in List I, II & III of VII Schedule to the constitution of [ndia, and held that only when there is repugnancy between the central and State law with regard to the subjects enurnerated in the concurrent list, the Central Law would prevail. The Apex court in the aforesaid judgment further held that -

71. ...where Parliamentary legisration and state legislation occupy dffirent fields and deal uith separate nnd distinct matters anen though of a cognate and allied character antl tlut uhere, as in that case, there was no'inconsistency in the actual terms of the Acts enacted hy parliament antl tlrc state legislature relatabk t9 Entry 33 of List IU, the test E repugnancy would be uthether parliament and staie legislature, in legislating on an entry in tlrc Concurrent List, exercised their powers wer tlrc satne suhject-matter or whether the laws enacted by parriament roere intendetl to be exhausted as to cauer tlrc entire field, and adtled: The pith and substance of arguruent cannot be imported here for the simple reason that, when hoth the Centre as uell as the ' lrss:1 4.scc4s \a 20 state l-egislatures zoere operating in the concurrent fietd, there was no question of any trespass upon the excltrsiae jurisdiction of the Centre under Entry 52 of List l, the only question rnhich suruiaed being whether, putttng both the pieces of legislation enacted by the Centre and tlrc state Legislature, there uas any such repugnancy, ....

30. The above view has been reiterated by the Apex court in M/s. Security Association of India v. (Inion of IndiaE.

31. In the liglrt of the law as enunciated by the Apex court, it is to be seen that e-challan system in the unified State of A.p. and tlrereafter in the State of Telangana, is in operation since, 2007 (as adopted by State of Telangana vide G.O. Ms. No. 45 dt.

01.06.2016) and is a technology-based initiative designed to ensure transparency, convenience, and accountability in traffic enforcernent. In as much as there is no conflict between the central [.egislation and state Legislation'and its irnplementation and in absence of respondent no.3 not raisin g any objection, the claim of the petitioner to the contrary, is figrnent of his irnagination and on the said basis cannot justify his challenge to the collection of penalties for traffic violations through e-challan ' lzora; 12 scc Gs I 21 or lgvy of user charges by respondent no.l and 2 as arbitrary or illegal and violative of Art . 14 and,2 r of co.stitution of India. 32' In view of the foregoing, this court does not find any merit in the plea of the petitioner that the State has acted arbitrarily or unconstitutionalry. The coilection of user charges is traceabre to a valid Government order vide G.o. Ms. No. 307 dated. 26.12.2007 and the statutory framework under. Section r2g and 129 of Mv Act, l9gg, mandating wearing of headgear ('errnet) by a person implying pillion rider even before Amendment Act,2019. 33' Accordingry, the writ petition as fired is devoid of rnerit and is disrnissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending sha-l! stalc[g_lgsa( //TRUE COPY// \

1. 2 3. 4. To SA PM o / ,t Sd/.AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT pt'** SECTION OFFICER Telangana at Advocate (OPUC) ) t HIGH COURT DATED:2810712025 E WP.No.9115 ot 2 24 u 'J (, (, 'l tl t] t t, DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS { LI ,rl