SURAKSHA FOUNDATION Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this public interest litigation petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to comply with the provisions of Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989(hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1989 ) and further to direct the respondent-State to prepare an implementation plan for installation of electronic speed limiters/speed governors to ensure safety of passengers and other road users, who suffer heavy casualties on account of frequent motor vehicle accidents.

(2.) The petitioner has averred in the petition that road safety is a matter of paramount concern today. To ensure safe roads, various provisions are incorporated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988 ). There are number of reasons for causing motor accidents, out of which one of the important reason is the high speed of the motor vehicles and to control the same, various provisions have been incorporated in the Act of 1988 and the Rules of 1989, but the respondents are not implementing the statutory provisions, which are in public interest. The petitioner has also mentioned that Government of India has issued a Notification bearing No. 425-E dated 09.06.1989, whereby maximum speed limit of motor vehicles has been fixed. Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989 is also there to control the speed of the motor vehicles by fitting speed governors in the motor vehicles. Speed governors can help in reducing the road accidents. It also plays an important role in controlling vehicular pollution.

(3.) The petitioner has also pleaded that the relevant provisions of the Act of 1988 and the Rules of 1989, including Rule 118 relating to speed governor, were considered by the Hon ble Apex Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Others, 1997 8 SCC 770. Various High Courts including High Courts of Kerala, Karnataka, Calcutta, Punjab and Haryana have issued directions to the concerned respondent-State Governments to implement the provisions of Rule 118 of the Rules of 1989. The directions issued by Karnataka and Punjab and Haryana High Courts have been upheld by the Hon ble Apex Court also.