Reasonable restrictions without interfering with basic rights to move freely or personal liberty could be imposed by State.

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

In all these writ petitions as common order is under challenge and common question of law involved, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners have challenged G.O. Ms. No.292 dated 22nd Feb., 2007, issued from Home (Tr. V) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. By the said order, giving reference to Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as MV Act), wearing of headgear (helmets) have been made compulsory for drivers and pillion riders of all two wheelers.

3. Mr. R. Muthukrishnan, advocate of this Court, who is the petitioner in W.P. No.18708/07, made the following submissions :-

a) The impugned order is arbitrary, patently illegal and unconstitutional, being in derogation of Article 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution of India as it restricts the freedom of movement of two wheeler riders and pillion riders.

b) The said order infringes the personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

c) The order being misconceived, it is impracticable for implementation of such order.

Further, according to the petitioner, there are about 1.5 Crores of citizens living in the State of Tamil Nadu. They are living in a democratic country having civil rights. No person can force such persons to wear headgear or helmet, as in no manner it will affect any other citizen of the country. The safety of a person can be seen by the person concerned and no law could be enforced on the ground of safety of a person concerned, who do not want it.

The petitioner, Mr. Muthukrishnan, has also challenged the authority of the person, i.e., the Secretary to Government, Home (Tr. V) department, Government of Tamil Nadu, who signed and issued G.O. Ms. No.292 dated 22nd Feb., 2007, on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to issue such order, which could be done by issuance of a rule under the MV Act. Further, according to him, Section 129 of the MV Act is declaratory in nature and not mandatory. It is an enabling provision to enforce such law, which is a benign Act and could be enforced only by the State in exercise of power conferred by Section 138 by framing a rule. The Secretary to the Government, according to him, having no law making power, is incompetent to issue any order, including the impugned order in question.

It was further submitted by Mr. Muthukrishnan, that the Bureau of Indian Standards has not prescribed any standard of design of a helmet as evident from their letter dated 2nd March, 2007, wherein it is stated that the Indian Standards for protective helmets for scooter and motor cycle riders is prescribed in IS 4151: 1993 and as on the date this IS 4151 is not covered under mandatory BIS certification as per provision of clause 14 of BIS Act, 1986. The prescription of a helmet as per requirement of Bureau of Indian Standards as laid down under the impugned order dated 22nd Feb., 2007, according to the petitioner, has been inserted without application of mind.

4. The petitioner, Ms. J.S.N. Nimmu Vasanth, in W.P. No.18665/07 appeared in person and adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Muthukrishnan, who is the petitioner in the first case. She relied on second additional affidavit and submitted that though there was no direction given by this court in any of the writ petition, but the impugned G.O. Ms. No.292 dated 22nd Feb., 2007, was issued on the presumption as if there was a direction given by this Court in another case. She relied on Section 212 of the MV Act to suggest that public opinion ought to have been obtained prior to implementation of Section 129, but the impugned order dated 22nd Feb., 2007, was issued without obtaining public opinion. Reliance was placed on notification contained in G.O. Ms. No.797, Home (Tr. V) Department dated 4th June, 2007, published in the Extraordinary Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, wherein, in exercise of powers conferred by 2nd proviso to Section 129 of MV Act, categories of