JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Santosh Karnawat, in the shape of public interest litigation. The petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 255-A of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 and the Notification No. GSR 35, dated 6th November, 1987, issued in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 255-A. 2. Rule 255-A, which was introduced by Notification dated 6th November, 1987, published in Rajasthan Gazette Ex. Pt. IV (I) dated 10th November, 1987, reads as under : "255-A. Use of protective head gear:- Every person driving or riding on two wheeler motor vehicle viz. Motor Cycle, Scooter, Moped etc. shall, while in public place, wear a protective head gear of the specification prescribed by the Bureau of Indian Standard: Provided that a period of six months shall be allowed to obtain the protective head gear from the date of publication of this notification or any other notification providing for the use of such protective head gear under this Rule: Provided further that the State Government may, from time to time by notification in official Gazette, relax the application of this provision for a class of drivers; riders object to such conditions as it may deem fit; Provided also that the State Government may, from time to time by notification in the Official Gazette, except from the provisions of this Rule, any area or areas of the State as may deem fit." 3. The notification GSR 35, dated 6th November, 1987, provides as under:- "GSR 35. - In exercise of the powers conferred by rule 255-A of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951, the State Government hereby- (a) relax the provision of these rules in the case of:- (i) pillion riders, and (ii) Sikh drivers wearing turban; (b) exempt from the provisions of these rules, areas other than the Municipal limits of Jaipur, Jodhpur, Udaipur, Bikaner, Kuta and Ajmer." 4. Notice was issued to the respondents of this writ petition. In response to the said notice, a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the said reply. 5. Notice was issued to the respondents of this writ petition. In response to the said notice, a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the said reply. 5. We will first deal with the validity of Rule 255-A. The first contention that has been urged by Shri J. K. Singhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the said Rule is ultra vires the rule making powers of the State Government under rule 91 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In support of his aforesaid , submission, shri Singhi has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 85-A of the Act (inserted by Act No. 27 of 1977), which makes provision for wearing protective head gear. The submission of Shri Singhi is that under Section 85-A powers with regard to framing of rules relating to protective bead gear in respect of persons driving/riding motor vehicles of any class have been conferred on the Central Government and in view of the said provision, the State Government is not competent to frame a rule providing for wearing protective head gear by the persons driving motor vehicles, which expression includes all two-wheelers such as motor-cycle, scooter, moped. Shri Singhi has submitted that in exercise of the powers under Section 85-A. the Central Government has not made any rules so far and that Rule 255-A framed by the State Government is ultra vires the rule making powers of the State Government. In our opinion, there is no substance in the aforesaid contention. We find that by Notification dated 14th May, 1980, Section 85-A was to be brought into force with effect from 1st November, 1980; but prior to that by Notification dated 31st October, 1980, the notification dated 14th May, 1980 was cancelled. This means that Section 85-A of the Act has not yet come into force and on the basis of the provisions contained in Section 85-A of the Act, it cannot be said that the State Government is not empowered to frame a rule with regard to wearing of protective head gear by persons driving motor vehicles and the Central Government alone is competent to frame such a rule. 6. 6. If Section 85-A is left out, we are left with Section 91 of the Act which confers powers on the State Government to make rules for carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter VI of the Act, relating to Control of Traffic. In Clause (i) of Sub-sec. (2) of Section 91, power has been conferred to frame rules to 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;" 7. Shri Singhi has urged that the said power cannot be invoked in support of Rule 255-A because the words "any person" in clause (i) do not include the driver, and a rule cannot be framed under Section 91 (2) (i) of the Act for the purpose of prevention of danger or injury to the diver of a motor cycle. In our opinion, there is no warrant for restricting the words 'any person' in clause (i) of sub-sec. (2) of Section 91 in a manner as to exclude the driver of the vehicle from its ambit. The words "any person" are words of wide amplitude and would cover every person, including driver of the vehicle. We are of the view that in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 91 (2) (i), a rule can be framed by the State Government for the purpose of prevention of danger or injury to the driver of motor cycles. Rule 255-A is intended for the protection of the driver of a two-wheeler from the injury which he may sustain in the event of accident, It cannot, therefore, be said Rule is ultra vires the rule making power of the State Government. 8. The next contention that has been urged by Shri Singhi was that Rule 255-A in so far as it make; it obligatory for the driver of a motor cycle to wear a helmet is unreasonable and arbitrary. 8. The next contention that has been urged by Shri Singhi was that Rule 255-A in so far as it make; it obligatory for the driver of a motor cycle to wear a helmet is unreasonable and arbitrary. The submission of Shri Singhi is that the State Government could have made it discretionary for the driver of motor cycle to wear the helmet; but making it compulsory renders the said rule unreasonable, Shri Singhi has argued that before making Rule 255-A. the State Government did not collect any data with regard to the number of accidents in which the drivers of two-wheelers are involved and the nature of injuries sustained by those drivers in such accidents and in the absence of such an inquiry, Rule 255-A could not have been framed and for that reason, the said rule in unreasonable. 9. The learned Advocate General has pointed out that provisions similar to Rule 255-A have been made by other States, namely, Tamil Nadu, U.P. Karnataka and Delhi Administration. He has also submitted that before promulgation of Rule 255-A a draft of the said rule was notified and published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 26th May, 1987. By the said notice the persons effected by the said Rule were given an opportunity file objections/suggestions by 30th June, 1987. The learned Advocate General has pointed out that in response to the said notice some objections/representations were received. In some of the representations, objections were raised with regard to the wearing of helmet by pillion rider, but it was suggested that it should be made compulsory for the drivers of two-wheelers. The learned Advocate General has also pointed out that the said objections were duly considered by the Government and after considering the same, Rule 255-A was framed and the Notification GSR 35 dated 6th November, 1987, was issued. The learned Advocate General has also placed before us the report of the committee constituted by the Government of India, on Road Safety under the Chairmanship of Snri Govindji Mishra as well as certain articles which have been published in various magazines and newspapers. 10. In the report of the Committee on Road Safety constituted by the Central Government under the Chairmanship of Shri Govindji Mishra, we find a reference to the recommendations made in 1972 by the Study Group on Road Safety, which was appointed by the Central Government in the year 1969. 10. In the report of the Committee on Road Safety constituted by the Central Government under the Chairmanship of Shri Govindji Mishra, we find a reference to the recommendations made in 1972 by the Study Group on Road Safety, which was appointed by the Central Government in the year 1969. One of the recommendations of the said Study Group was as under : "69. Use of safety helmets should be encouraged and gradually made compulsory for the drivers as well as pillion riders of scooters and motorcycles. Read wheels of motor cycles should be properly covered to prevent loose garments of pillion riders being entangled in the spokes of these wheels. Roll-over bears should be provided for motor cycles to prevent body injuries in the case of over-turning. Road view mirror, stop lamps, and illuminated direction indicators should be made compulsory equipment for such vehicles." 11. In an article bearing the title, "Traffic : Death On The Roads", published in 'India Today' of May 15, 1987, the author Shri Raj Chengappa has collected the figures about road accidents and on the basis of the said figures he has stated:- "Twenty-five per cent of all accident victims are two wheeler riders. And most of them die because they either don't wear helmets, or don't wear them properly. A Delhi study found that while only 24 per cent of helmeted riders sustained critical injuries, the figure was as high as 56 per cent for unhelmeted riders. In 30 per cent of the cases helmet had come off before impact." 12. In another article "Helmets worn in a casual way" by Satyen Mohapatra published in Hindustan Times of 15th July, 1988 (New Delhi Edition), it has been stated that : "Last year 920 motor cycles and scooters were involved in accidents and 84 persons died. Studies show that one of the most important reason for the death of a rider is bead injury. Studies showed that of all vehicles on the road, two-wheeler drivers were the most accident prone whether scooterists or motorcyclists." 13. Studies show that one of the most important reason for the death of a rider is bead injury. Studies showed that of all vehicles on the road, two-wheeler drivers were the most accident prone whether scooterists or motorcyclists." 13. In another article-"Roads : Unsafe at any speed" by Shri Dinesh Mohan, published in Express Magazine (Indian Express-Sunday Edition), of 17th July, 1988, the most important findings of the last thirty years research have been summarised and, one of the findings of the said research is that "use of crash helmets is the single most effective safety measure for two-wheeler riders." 14. The learned Advocate General has also placed before us the relevant office file which shows that prior to the issuance of the impugned notifications, the matter was considered fully in the light of the objections which were received as well as in the light of the analysis made by the Police Department with regard to the road accidents taking place in the State of Rajasthan. It cannot, therefore, be said that while framing Ruts 255-A, the State Government did not take into consideration the relevant material with regard to the injuries which are caused to the drivers of two-wheelers in road accidents and the effective means of preventing fatal accidents to such drivers. In this connection, it may be mentioned that while making Rule 255-A, the State Government gave six months' time for enforcing the provisions of the said Rule inasmuch as in the proviso to Rule 255-A it has been provided that a period of six months shall be allowed to obtain protective head gear from the date of the said notification is (sic or) any other notification providing for the use of such protective head gear under Rule 255-A. Moreover, by notification GSR 35, which was issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 255-A of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951, relaxation has been made in respect of pillion riders and Sikh drivers wearing turban and for the time being Rule 255-A has been made applicable only within the municipal limits of Jaipur, Jodhpur, Udaipur, Bikaner. Kota and Ajmer, the principal towns in the State of Rajasthan. This shows that the State Government is introducing Rule 255-A gradually. Kota and Ajmer, the principal towns in the State of Rajasthan. This shows that the State Government is introducing Rule 255-A gradually. Taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the action of the State Government cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable. 15. Shri Singhi has next urged that in the Notification No. GSR 35, dated 6th November, 1987 that has been issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Rule 255-A relaxation has been made in favour of Sikh drivers wearing turban, but no similar relaxation has been made in respect of non-Sikh drivers who wear turban and that the notification suffers from the vice of arbitrary and hostile discrimination. In our view, there is no merit in this contention. The relaxation that has been made in favour of Sikh drivers is for the reason that Sikhs. by virtue of their religious tradition are required to wear turban and wearing of helmet is not possible in their case and, therefore, an exception has been made in respect of Sikh drivers. There is no such tradition to wear turban in respect of non-Sikhs. Therefore, it cannot be said that in making relaxation in favour of Sikh drivers in the Notification No. GSR 35, dated 6th Nov., 1987, the State Government has arbitrarily discriminated between Sikh drivers and non-Sikh drivers. 16. No other contention has been raised by Shri Singhi. 17. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Interim stay order stands vacated.Petition Dismissed. *******