ecial Leave Petition C No 1252 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 10887 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in WP 10800187
PA Choudhary TVSN Chari C Badrinath and Mrs Sunitha Rao for the Petitioner
KParasaran Attorney General G Chandra and A Sub hashini for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dutt J
The only question that is involved in this petition relates to the validity of rule 498 A of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules 1964 and a notification dated July 8 1986 issued by the respondent No 3 the Commissioner of Police Hyderabad and Secunderabad In exercise of his Powers under section 211 of the Hyderabad City Police Act inter alia directing that in order to ensure adequate safety of two wheeler riders wearing of protective helmets is made compulsory for riders of motor cycles and scooters as envisaged by rule 498 A with effect from August 1 1986
Rule 498 A provides as follows Rule 4983 A Crash helmets to be worn No person shall drive a motor cycle or a scooter in a public place unless such driver wears a crash helmet Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to a person professing Sikh religion and wears a turban   The petitioner who is a student and has a permanent drivined licence for a two wheeler vehicle filed a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the validity of the said notification as also of rule 498 A on the ground that the same was violative of the rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 19ld and Article PG NO 636 21 of the Constitution of India
It was contended by the petitioner before the High Court that as section 85 A of the was yet to be enforced rule 498 A was illegal and ultra vires the 
It was also contended that the wearing of helmets preventing the free flow of breeze to the head would result in giddiness and affect sight and hearing
The petitioner filed an affidavit of one Dr Prabhakar Korada wherein it has been stated inter alia that continuous wearing of helmets can raise the pressure leading to irritation confusion headaches giddiness falling of hair etc
The High Court has overruled the contentions of the petitioner that the said notification or the provision of rule 498 A of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles rules is violative of Article 191d or Article 21 of the Constitution or that it is illegal or ultra vires the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act1939
The High Court also relied upon medical opinions of some Neuro Surgeons of repute and came to the finding that wearing of helmets would not cause any ailment whatsoever as contended by the petitioner
In that view of the matter the High Court dismissed the writ petition upholding the validity of the notification and the provision of rule 498 A of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules
Hence this petition for special leave
At this stage it may be noticed that by motor Vehicles Amendment Act XXVII of 1977 a new section 85 A was inserted in the  hereinafter referred to as the Act  Section 85 A provides as follow section 85 A Every person driving or riding otherwise than in a side car on a motor cycle of any class shall while in a public place
wear a protective headgear of such description as may be specified by the Central Government by rules made by it in this behalf and different descriptions of headgears may be specified in such rules in relation to deferent circumstances or different class of motor cycles Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply to a person who is a Sikh if he iswhile driving or riding on the motor cycle in a public place wearing a turban Provided further that the Central Government may by such rules provide for such exceptions as it may think fit
 Sub section 2 of section 1 of Act XXVII of 1977 provides that the Amendment Act shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of the Amendment Act
In view of sub section 2 of section 1 of Act XXVll of 1977 the Central Government by a notification dated May 14 1980 fixed November 1 1980 as the date on which the provision of section 85 A would come into force
But by another notification dated October 3 1 1980 the earlier notification dated May 14 1480 fixing the date of enforcement of section 85 A as November 1 1980 was cancelled
It is contended by Mr Ghatate learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the cancellation of the notification dated May 14 1980 section 85 A has not come into force and as such there is no provision in the providing for wearing of protective headgear or helmet by the driver of a motor cycle of any class while driving the same
It is submitted that in the absence of any specific provision in the Act rule 498 A is ultra vires the Act itself and consequently the impugned notification issued under section 211 of the Hyderabad City Police Act is illegal and should be struck down
As there was some doubt as to whether section 85 A had come into force by virtue of the notification date May14 1980 and whether the Central Government had the power to cancel l the said notification by the subsequent notification dated October311980 we thought it expedient to request the learned Attorney General to appear and assist the Court
In compliance with our request the learned Attorney General has appeared before us but we are of the view that no assistance will by necessary on the point as we do not think that we are for the reasons state called upon to adjudicate upon the question hereafter
The learned Attorney General has however assisted us in disposing of this petition and we are thankful to him
We shall proceed on the assumption that section 85 A has not yet been enforced by the Central Government
We may now deal with the question as to the legality or otherwise of rule 498 A
The said rule has been framed by the State Government by virtue of its rule making power under clause i of sub section 2 of section 91 of the Act
PG NO 637 Sub section  1 of section 91 and clause i of sub section 2 provide as follows 911 The State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Chapter
2 Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may provide for i generally the prevention of danger injury or annoyance to the public or any person or of danger or injury to property or of obstruction to traffic It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that rule 498 A does not and cannot come within the rule making power of the State under clause i of sub section 2 of section 19 of the Act for it does not refer to the driver of a motor cycle or scooter
It is true that clause i does not refer to the driver of a motor cycle or a scooter but it is much wider inasmuch as it provides inter alia for the prevention of danger injury or annoyance to the public or any person
It is not disputed that rule 498 A has been framed for the purpose of protecting the head from being injured in cast of an accident
It is common knowledge that head of the driver of a two wheeler vehicle is the main target of an accident and often it is fatal to the driver
By insisting on the wearing of a helmet by the driver driving a two wheeler vehicle rule 498 A intends to protect the head from being fatally injured in case of an accident
Clause i is wide enough to include the driver of a motor cycle or a scooter
The expression any personin clause i also inlucdes within it a driver of a two wheeler vehicle
We are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the words any person do not include the driver of a two wheeler vehicle and the rule is intended to prevent the danger injury or annoyance to the public or any person other than the driver of a two wheeler vehicle
In our view clause i is also intended for the prevention ot danger injury or annoyance to the public or any person including the driver of a two wheeler vehicle
In our view
clause i is also in Tended for the prevention of danger injury or annoyance to the public or any person including the driver of a two wheeler vehicle
rule 498 A is therefore quite legal and valid in spite of the absence of any provision like section 85 A PG NO 638 It is submitted by the learned Attorney General that even assuming that rule 498 A does not come within the purview of clause i of sub section 2 of section 91 still the State Government could frame such a rule under sub section  1 of section 9 1
The learned Attorney General submits that the clauses under sub section 2 of section 91 are only illustrative and not exhaustive and the power is real under sub section 1
In support of his contention he has referred to a decision of this Court in Om Prakash and others vs Union oflndia and others AIR 1971 SC 77 1 where it has been observed by this Court that it is a well established proposition of law that where specific power is conferred without prejudice to the generally of the general power already specified the particular power is only illustrative and does not in any way restrict the general power
In the instant case also the general power is in sub section 1 and sub section Z contains illust rations and does not in any way restrict the general power under sub section 1
Thus even assuming that rule 498 A is not covered by clause i of sub section 2 it is quite immateriaI inasmuch as such a rule can be framed in exercise of the general power under sub section 1 for the purpose ot carrying into effect Chapter V1 relating to con trol of traffic
There is therefor no substance in the contention of the petitioner that rule 498 A is ultra vires the provision of the Act
The next attack to rule 498 A and to the impugned notification is based on the fundamental right of a Citizen
It is submitted that the compulsion for the wearing of a helmet by the driver of two wheeler vehicle is an infringement of the freedom of movement of such a driveras guaranteed by Article 191d do the Constitution and that such compulsion be rule 498 A interfering with the freedom of movement not having made in accordance with the procedure established by law is also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution
The contention does not at all commend to us
Rule 498 A ensures protection and safety to the head of the driver of a two wheeler vehicle in case of an accident
There can be no doubt that rule 498 A is framed for the benefit welfare and the safe journey by a person in a two wheeler vehicle
It aims at prevention of any accident being fatal to the driver of a two wheeler vehicle causing annoyance to the public and obstruction to the flow of traffic for the time being
It is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that the compulsion for putting on a headgear or helmet by the driver as provided by rule 498 Arestricts or curtails the freedom of movement
On the contrary in our opinion it helps the driver of a two wheeler vehicle to drive the vehicle in exercise of his freedom of movement without being subjected to a constant apprehension of a fatal head injury if any accident takes PG NO 640 place
We do not think that there is any fundamental right against any act aimed at doing some public good
Even assuming that the impugned rule has put a restriction on the exercise of a fundamental right under Article 191d such restriction being in the interest of the general public is a reasonable restriction protected by Article 195 of the Constitution
As rule 498 A has been framed in accordance with the procedure established by law that is in exercise of the rule making power conferred on the State Government under section 91 of the Act as discussed above the question of infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution does not arise
The contention of the petitioner that rule 498 A and the impugned notification dated July 81986 issued by the Commissioner of Police in exercise of his powers under section 211 of the Hyderabad City Police Act infringe the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19ld and Article 21 of the Constitution is devoid of merit and is rejected
As to the contention of the petitioner that the wearing of the helmet causes some ailments we do not think that there is any merit in the contention particularly in view of the medical opinions of some Neuro Surgeons of repute as referred to by the High Court in its judgment
The contention has not also been seriously pressed before us
The High Court was therefore perfectly justified in rejecting the contention
For the reasons aforesaid the special leave petition is dismissed
As no notice has been served on the respondent there will be no order as to costs
NVK Petition dismissed


Summary:
The dispute as to the refund of earnest money deposit to the respondent contractor was referred to an arbitrator named in the arbit ration clause of the agreement
The respondent filed claim before him
During the pendency of the claim before the said arbitrator there was succession to that office by another incumbent
The succeeding Officer wanted to continue the arbitration proceedings but before that the respondent made an application under section 5 of the for removal of the arbitrator on the ground that he being an employee of the State the petitioner apprehended bias
The Judge City Civil Court found that the Chief Engineer of the Circle concerned was in favour of the cancellation of the contract in question and when it came to be terminated the construction was sought to be entrusted at the risk and cost of the petitioner on the advice or the proposal of the Chief Engineer
Being of the view that the arbitrator the Superintending Engineer being subordinate to the said Chief Engineer would necessarily have a leaning to accept the attitude expressed by latter he concluded that there could legitimately be a bias in the mind of the arbitrator
The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine
Allowing the appeal by special leave HELD A named and agreed arbitrator cannot and should not be removed in exercise of a discretion vested in the court under section 5 of the Act unless there is allegation either against his honesty or capacity or mala fide or interest in the subject matter or reasonable apprehensiors of the bias
677E F A predisposition to decide for or against one party without proper regard to the true merits of the dispute is bias
There must be reasonable apprehension of that predisposition based on cogent materials
Mere imagination PG NO 673 PG NO 674 of a ground cannot be an excuse for apprehending bias
677F G 678C International Authority lndia vs
KD Bali  Anr
JT 1988 2 SC1
and Commercial Arbitration by Mustill  Boyd 1982 Edn p214 Hulsbury s Laws of England 4th Edn
Vol 2 para 551 p 282 referred to
In the instant case when the parties entered into the contract they knew the terms of the contract including arbitration clause providing that the Superintending Engineer of a particular Circle shall be the arbitrator
They also knew the scheme and the fact that the said Superintending Engineer was subordinate to the Chief Engineer of the Circle
ln spite of that the parties agreed and entered into arbitration and indeed submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator at that time to begin with who however could not complete the arbitration because he was transferred and succeeded by a successor
In these circumstances no bias could reasonably be apprehended and made a ground for removal of a named contractor
In numerous contracts with the Government clauses requiring the Superintending Engineer or some official of the Government to be the arbitrator are there
It cannot be said that the Superintending Engineer as such cannot be entrusted with the work or arbitration and that apprehension simpliciter in the mind of the contractor without any tangible ground would he a justification for removal
677C F The case is remanded back to the Judge City Civil Court Madras to appoint the Superintending Engineer Trichy to be the arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration agreement
678C D