PIL In MP High Court Challenges 'No Helmet, No Petrol' Rule For Two-Wheelers In Indore Applicable From August 1

A PIL been filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging a July 30 order issued by Indore's Collector directing that fuel shall not be given to two-wheelers by any petrol-pump in the city if the two-wheeler rider does not wear a helmet.

The plea states that the order is scheduled to remain in effect from August 1 to September 29.  

Referring to a meeting of July 29, held by the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety in Indore, the Collector's order states: "That such two wheeler drivers who are not wearing helmets will not be supplied petrol by any petrol pump. In case of violation of this order, legal action will be taken against the concerned petrol pump". 

The petition filed by President of Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association of Indore and practicing advocate Ritesh Inani, states that the July 30 order is "unjust, arbitrary and would-not serve the intended public safety". The plea states that instead of enhancing public safety, the order would "cause inconvenience to the public at large". 

The plea argues that the poor road infrastructure and traffic management were among the primary causes of two-wheeler accidents. Rather than addressing these systemic issues, the authorities issued the impugned order to 'hide their inability to provide better roads and traffic experience', it claims. 

The plea also addressed another major cause for two-wheeler accidents is the 'rash and negligent driving by the persons driving four-wheeler and other big vehicles'. The plea stated that the order only singles out two-wheelers and no directions were issued for four-wheelers. 

While acknowledging that helmets contribute to enhancing driver safety, the plea questioned the lack of directions to safeguard from other contributing factors. 

Further, the plea states that since petrol and petroleum products fall within the scope of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, access to such commodities cannot be denied through an executive order. The plea argues that the order, thus, violates Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution. 

Additionally, it states that Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, already mandates wearing a protective headgear and imposes a penalty of Rs. 1,000 for non-compliance. It argues that the Collector's order therefore imposes a "double penalty" on the person not wearing a helmet by refusing access to fuel. 

Highlighting that the maximum permissible speed for two-wheelers within the municipal area is 40km/h and that most accident-prone zones lie outside the area, the plea urged that such an order should be enforced only in outer areas and accident-prone zones. 

Accordingly, the plea seeks quashing of the Collector's order. It also prayed for directions to the authorities for issuance of 'fresh guidelines for improving road and traffic condition of City, after taking note of all the conditions and circumstances and ground realities, which should not be limited to two-wheelers only'. 

The matter is expected to be listed on Monday. 

Case Title: Ritesh Inani v State of Madhya Pradesh

Counsel For Petitioner: Advocate Kuldeep Pathak