Back
2008 Supreme(MP) 1177
A. K. PATNAIK, C. J. AND AJIT SINGH, J.
Gyan Prakash
Versus
Union of India and Ors.
W.P. No. 6969 of 2006
Decided on : 25-11-2008.
Gyan Prakash, for Petitioner; Jayant Neekhra, learned counsel, Vijay Shukla, Learned Deputy Adv. General, Vivek Tankha, learned Sr. Counsel with L.K. Bhushan, Ms. Jailaxmi Aiyer and Manish Datt learned counsel, Anil Khare, for Respondents.
The registering authority may refuse to register a motor cycle if it does not comply with the safety requirements of the Act and the Rules, despite having test certificates from approved agencies.
Headnote:
Motor Cycles - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 44, Rule 123 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation alleging that road accidents in India, particularly in Madhya Pradesh, were caused by the non-compliance of safety provisions for motor cycles under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The court directed the authorities to refuse registration of motor cycles that did not comply with the safety requirements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the motor cycles did not comply with the safety requirements specified in Rule 123 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, and therefore refused the petitioner's request to direct the registering authorities to register the motor cycles.
Issues: The main issue was whether the motor cycles complied with the safety requirements under Rule 123 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the registering authority may refuse to register a motor cycle if it does not comply with the safety requirements of the Act and the Rules, despite having test certificates from approved agencies.
Final Decision: The court directed the registering authorities to only register motor cycles that comply with Rule 123 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules as explained in the judgment.
Act Referred
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT : S.44, S.110
A. K. PATNAIK, C. J. :-
This is an application filed by the respondent No. 6, Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers, for grant of permission to direct the respondents to register motor cycles sold by manufacturers in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
2. The background facts leading to filing of this application are that Writ Petition No. 6969/2006 was filed as Public Interest Litigation by the petitioner stating that a number of road accidents leading to deaths has been taking place in recent years in India calling for concerted and multi-disciplinary preventive and remedial measures. In paragraph 4.30.10 of the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that for the death due to motor cycles, the State of Madhya Pradesh is responsible because the registering authorities have been registering the motor cycles in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and in particular Section 44 of the Act. In paragraph 5.15 of the writ petition, the petitioner has quoted Rule 123 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, (for short 'the CMV Rules') titled "Safety devices in motorcycle", which provides that no motor cycle which has provision for pillion rider, shall be constructed without provision for a permanent hand grip on the side or behind the driver's seat and a foot rest and a protective device covering not less than half of the rear wheel so as to prevent the clothes of a person sitting on the pillion from being entangled in the wheel. The petitioner has prayed inter-alia that registration of motor cycles in violation of Rule 123 of the CMV rules be immediately banned by the State of Madhya Pradesh.
3. On 6-3-2007 the petitioner filed I.A. No. 2186/2007 alleging that manufacturers are violating Rule 123 of the CMV Rules to promote sales, thus endangering the life of pillion riders inasmuch as they do not provide in motor-cycles hand-grips and protective devices to prevent entanglement of clothing/legs in the rear wheel. In the writ petition, the petitioner has further alleged that as a result of violation of Rule 123 of the CMV Rules, approximately 1000 young persons were being killed annually in Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner accordingly prayed that the Court should immediately ban sale and registration of motor cycles which violates Rule 123 of the CMV rules in not providing the protective device covering not less half of the rear wheel and permanent hand-grip for the pillion rider and that the Court should direct the dealers to replace the motor cycles already sold. On 26-11-2007 the Court after considering the large number of accidents taking place because of non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 123 of the CMV Rules directed as an interim measure that no motor cycle, which does not comply with the requirements of Rule 123 of the CMV Rules, will be registered by the registering authorities in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
4. When the matter was taken up on 10-3-2008, the petitioner stated before the Court that the order dated 26-11-2007 has not been complied with and the Court directed the Transport Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, to file an affidavit whether the order dated 26-11-2007 passed by the Court has been complied with and if so how. Pursuant to the order dated 10-3-2008, an affidavit of compliance was filed on 21-4-2008 stating that the Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh had already directed on 20-12-2007 all the Regional Transport Officers, Additional Regional Transport Officers and District Transport Officers not to register any motor cycle until and unless the mandates of Rule 123 of the CMV Rules are complied with. On 28-4-2008 the Court directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to file an affidavit indicating the number of cases in which different Regional Transport Officers had refused registration of motor cycles for non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 123 of the CMV Rules.
5. Pursuant to the order dated 28-4-2008, the State of Madhya Pradesh filed an affi
