Judgment · High Court · 2007
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 129
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent hasalso produced before us the letter written by the Principal Secretary to the Government to the learned Advovcate General, Ernakulam. The letter reads asunder: “Refer to the Fax Message No.822/07/CC/(c) dated8.6.2007 from Sri M.R.Sabu, Senior Government…
Judgment
H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.---------------------------------------------------------- Contempt Case (C) No.822 of 2007 -----------------------------------------------------------Dated, this the 20th day of June, 2007JUDGMENTH.L. DATTU, CJ.Alleging that the respondents have not complied with the orders anddirections issued by this court in O.P.No.21296/2000 dt. 7.8.2003, the petitionersin the original petition are before us in this contempt proceedings.
This court, while disposing of the original petition, was pleased toobserve as under:
16. The provision of the Act and the Rule being clear, the Stateis under an obligation to ensure its compliance. The defaultersare liable to be punished. Mr. Roy Chacko has assured us thatthe provisions shall be enforced. As at present, the rule providesfor no exception. Thus, it is directed that the respondents shallenforce the provision immediately. Instructions shall be issued. The persons concerned shall be given a reasonable time toarrange for protective headgear, say four weeks. Thereafter, thedefaulters shall be dealt with according to law.
The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent hasalso produced before us the letter written by the Principal Secretary to the Government to the learned Advovcate General, Ernakulam. The letter reads asunder: “Refer to the Fax Message No.822/07/CC/(c) dated8.6.2007 from Sri M.R.Sabu, Senior Government Pleader, regarding WP(C) filed by George John, 230, Mather Nagar, Kochi, complaining about non-implementation of direction COC No.822/20072contained in the judgment dated 7.8.2003 in W.P.(C)No.21296/2000.2. In this regard I write to inform that the StateGovernment, on receipt of the judgment mentioned above, hadissued direction to the DGP and the Transport Commissioner, for strict enforcement of section 129 of the MV Act and Rule 347of the KMVR.3. A press release was issued by the TransportCommissioner for the information of the general public, especially the two wheeler riders, stating that the provisions ofsection 129 of MV Act 1988 would be enforced with effect from5.9.2003.
Subsequently, all the Deputy TransportCommissioners, Regional transport Officers and Joint R.T.Oswere directed to enforce the said provision strictly with effectfrom 5.9.2003 duly giving a period of about 4 weeks time to thetwo wheeler users to acquire protective head gear (helmet).4. When enforcement of the provisions was initiated, there was resistance from the two-wheeler users, especially the Two -wheeler Users Association; there were protest andagitations. Representations were received requesting todispense with enforcement of the said provision.5. While enforcement (of requirement of protective headgear) continued, a small concession in the face of requests fromthe general public was extended: the Pillion Riders alone wereexempted from wearing protective head gear, by invoking thesecond proviso to section 129 of the MV Act, as per G.O.(P)No.46/03/Tran dated 13.10.03 (SRO No.942/03).6.
Enforcement of compulsory wearing of protectiveheadgear continued scrupulously. But, there has been stiffresistance on the part of two-wheeler riders Associations, andalso from other organizations. However, all the enforcementofficers have again been alerted to enforce the provisionsscrupulously. COC No.822/200737. In view of the position as brought out above, thismatter, should it come up for hearing, may please be defended, on behalf of the State Government.” In view of the effective steps that are being taken by the respondents forimplementing the orders and directions issued by this court, in our opinion, for thepresent we need not have to entertain any contempt proceedings against therespondent. Accordingly, the proceedings are dropped. Ordered accordingly.H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE.mt/
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 129.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 20 Jun 2007. The bench was K T SANKARAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.