HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH ; BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON’BLE SHRls.R.NAYAK,CJ. ' I HON’BLE SHRI v.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. J rit Petition No. 2294 OF 2001 . PETITIONER Satish Sejpal S/o Tribhuwan Das CORAM W Sejpal, aged about 46 years. resident of 17-A Nandini Road. Power House, Bhilai District Durg. Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Department of Home. RESPONDENT§ \"‘*m"y The following oral order of the Court gives passed by S.R. Nayak, CJ. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming to be a pro bone pubiic character to espouse the cause of public. The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: "Relief sought : ln View of the facts stated above, the petitioner seeks issue of the following relief(s) That this Hon'ble Court may kindiy be pieased to call the entire records relating to implementation of Section 129 of Motor Vehicle Act in Durg district. J " ¢ 3. 2. The The Collector, Superintendent Durg, District Durg. District Durg. of Potice, Durg, 4. The Regional Durg. District Durg. Transport ' Authority, Present: Smt. Renu Konhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. learned Shri Vinay Dy. Harit, G.A. for learned the State. Dy. A.G. with Shri Utkarsh Verma, W (Passed on 09-1 1 -2006) 2. That, this Hon'ble Coutt may kindly be pleased to constitute a committee under the direct control cf this Hon’ble Court for carrying out the inspection of the roads, signals, opinion of the public at large, etc and the quality of Helmet, and obtained the report of the committee. 3. That this Hon‘ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrained the respondents from implementation of Section 129 of the Aot. 4. That after receipt of the report of the constituted committee this Hon’bie Court be further directed to first implement the report of the constituted committee. 5. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem tit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition”. (2) We read the petition averments. if we may say so, the pleadings are totally incomprehensible and do not make any sense. The only thing we could gather, that too with difficulty, is the fact that the petitioner seems to think that without providing durable and good quality helmets, the State ought not to have implemented the public law obligation imposed on it under Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short “the Act"). 83V (3) The writ petition is iiable to be dismissed in Ifmine for more than one reasont it needs to be noticed at the threshold that under no circumstance, writ of mandamus shall go to the State not to implement the public law obligation contained in Section 129 of the Act. ,Secondly, it needs to be noticed that it is not the legal obligation of the State or the State Authorities to provide protective headgear with lSl mark before implementing the obligation under Section 129 of the Act. We pointedly asked learned. counsel for the petitioner to trace sqch obligation of the