High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring Section 129 and 1 94D of the [Motor Vehicles Act, 19gg, as ultra vires, unconstitutional, or otherwise invalid is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Fundamental Rights of Article '14, 19, 21 and doctrine of Basic stricture of lndian constitution and consequently direct the Respondents authorities to declare Section 129 and 194D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1 988, as ultra vires, unconstitutional or otherwise invalid in the interest of justice' IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ futitlon, the High Court may be pleased to direct.Respondent No. 7 to release my bike bearing No. AP 24 L 54BB of the petitioner which has been seized, delete all the unconstitutional Pending challans ( only on not wearing helmet) on e-challan portal to my bike of the petitioner bearing No. AP 24 L 5488 pending disposal of the writ petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAKESH BOORGULA (PARTY lN PERSON) Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR' Deputy Solicitor General of lndia Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2: GP FOR TRANSPORT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 TO 7: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER ----7 THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTTCE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No.19539 of2o25 ORDER: (Per Hon'bte The Actinq Chief Jusricet \ The petitioner as pa_rty-in-person is heard on admission.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliet ". .. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction declaring Seclion 729 & 794D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 198g, as ultro uires, unconstitutional, or otherwise invalid is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Fundamental Rights of Article 14, 19, 27 and doctrine of Basic ,structure of Indian Constitution and consequently direct the Respondents authorities to declare Section L2g & 194D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as ultra uires, unconstitutional or otherwise invalid in the intqrest of justice and pass such orher order or orders iq this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in ttre circumstances of the case."

3. The petitioner/party-in person urged that on 03.06.2025 at around O6:30 PM while he was travelling from Hayathnagar to L.B.Nagar on his bike bearing No.Ap 24 L S4gg, he was stopped by the police and was asked to show his driving license. When the pelitioner showed his driving license, respondent No.7 checked his bike challans and issued 3O pending challans, out of which 2g { 2 .1 cha,llans were for not wearing a helmet. The total challan anounts were Rs.8,545/- and respondent No.7 asked the petiLioner to pay the said amount. \

4. It is further argued that Sections 129 and 194D of the Motor - Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the M.V.ActJ are unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 2l of the Constitution of India. These provisions are also against basic structure of the Constitution and therefore, deserve to be declared as unconstitutional

5. It is further canvassed that under Section 129 of the M.V. Act, it is envisaged that every person above four years of age must wear a head gear. However, Sikh community persons wearing turban are exempted. It is urged that helmet is fot' protectio4 of head irrespective of religion of the person wearing it. Thus, exempting Sikh people wearing turban from wearing helmet IS discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is averred that Sikh people must ald should wear helmet for their protection and exemption is bad in law. Similarly, Section 129 of the M.V.Act ta-lks about children above four years of age only, which means that kids below four years are not affected during accident ( ( J

6. No other point is pressed

7. The petitioner cannot draw parallel in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution from the Sik\ persons who wear turban. The constitutional validity of a statutory provision can be called in I r question on limited grounds. The petitioner has not called in question the aforesaid provisions on the ground of legislative competence. The test of equality is applicable amongst equals. Section 129 of the M.V. Act is not assailable merely because it exempts Sikh citizens wearing turban to wear a helmet.

8. The petitioner baldly stated that the impugned provisions are violative of Articles 74, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and hits doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution, ,but could not elaborate and establish as to how such Articles are infringed.

9. We see no reason to interfere in this petition. The petitioner could not even pima facie rr,ake out a case for issuance of notice for declaring Sections 129 and l94D of the M.V.Act as unconstitutiona-l. Hence, interference is declined.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner to raise his grievance relating I 4 \ to tra-ffic challans in appropriate proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed \ //TRUE COPY// /. L.VIJAYA LAXMI TANT REGISTRAR AS ECTION OFFICER i One CC to SRI RAKESH BOORGULA, Advocate [OPtl One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUIMAR, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR TRANSPORT, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies D \ To 1 2 4 5 PSK. T ( HIGH COURT DATED:0910712025 \ ORDER WP.No.19539 of 2025 I - r.;i:- 16 SEPJ025 (t .\.,! I ,/; 1- \.r_ .'j. .r .r/ ;r'' t DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WTTHOUT COSTS