HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. *** CWP No. 18634 of 2008 Date of Decision: 12.12.2008 *** Hemant Goswami Versus Union of India and others. *** CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Thakur, CJ and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh. *** Present: Shri Hemant Goswami, petitioner in person. Shri Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate, for Union of India. *** T.S.Thakur, CJ (Oral) This petition has been filed in public interest. The issues raised for consideration in this petition have already been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Namit Kumar Versus U.T.Administration and others CWP No. 7639 of 1995 disposed of on 9.7.1998. An appeal preferred against the said judgment was heard and disposed of by the Supreme Court with certain clarifications and directions by their Lordships order dated 27.9.2004. A reading of the said order would show that their Lordships have noticed the issues relating to the wearing of helmets and the grant of exemption from that requirement by the government in terms of Motor Vehicles (Protective Headgears) Rules, 1980 and observed: “One of the directions which has been assailed by several appellants relates to direction No.14 regarding use of helmets. The exemption has only been extended to Sikh women while driving. All others including women are required to wear helmets. Stand of the appellants is that such direction is contrary to several statutory prescriptions. Particular reference has been made to Section 85A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in -2- CWP No. 18634 of 2008 short the “Old Act”) and Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the New Act). It appears that Clause 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Protective Headgears) Rules, 1980 exempts Sikh women from wearing helmets. Reliance is also placed on Rule 193 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Rule 193 of the Chandigarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 to contend that Sikh women are exempt from wearing the helmets, and, therefore the High Court could not have given the direction contrary to the suggestion. It appears that the Rules were not brought to the notice of the High Court. We, therefore, direct that if any exemption is granted to any person including Sikh women from any of the Motor Vehicles Rules relating to different States or areas or under any Statutory Rule the same shall operate notwithstanding the directions of the High Court that all persons including women shall wear helmets”. In the light of the above decision and directions, we see no reason to issue any further direction in the present proceedings. This writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Learned counsel at this stage seeks certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 read with Article 134-A of the Constitution against this order. Since the matter has already been concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the appeal mentioned above, we see no reason to grant the certificate prayed for. The request made by the learned counsel is accordingly rejected. (T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice (Jasbir Singh) Judge December 12, 2008 Malik