Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. W.P. No.719 of 2007 has been preferred by one K.R. Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy for direction on 1st and 2nd respondents to issue Government Order making compulsory wearing of helmet by two wheeler drivers and pillion riders to avoid fatal accidents on roads. W.P. No.6437 of 2004 was preferred by CONCERT, a public charitable trust for direction for enforcing compulsory wearing of helmets by two wheeler drivers and pillion riders. W.P. No.19387 of 1999 was preferred by Accident Victims Association (Regd.) for direction on the 1st respondent to implement the provision of Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as MV Act) enforcing compliance of the provision regarding compulsory wearing of helmets by two wheeler drivers and pillion riders as also to take criminal action against those not complying with the said provision and for taking appropriate action against the police and other officials in case they do not implement the provision. 2. In these cases, affidavit were filed by respondents seeking for time to issue appropriate notification. Thereafter, the State Government issued G.O. Ms. No.292 dated 22nd Feb., 2007, from Home (TR.V) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, giving reference to Section 129 of the MV Act making compulsory wearing of headgear (helmets) for drivers and pillion riders of all two wheelers. It followed by G.O. Ms. No.797, Home (TR.V) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, dated 4th July, 2007, wherein, in exercise of power conferred by second proviso to Section 129 of the MV Act, proposal was made for exempting certain class, i.e., members of Meivazhi Sabha, who wear turban while they ride on motor cycle, women and children traveling as pillion riders of two wheelers, from the provision and for that objections and suggestions were called for as required under sub-section (1) to Section 212 of the said Act. 3. Mr.R.Muthukrishnan and Ms.B.Rajyalakshmi, intervened in W.P. No.719/07 preferred by K.R. Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy to oppose the writ petition. They were impleaded as party respondents 5 and 6 to the writ petition. Two other petitions have been preferred today, one by Mr. Indukanth S.Ragade and another by Ms. J.S.N. Nimmu Vasanth, who have also been allowed to intervene in W.P. No.719/07. They also opposed the writ petition mainly on the following grounds :- a) Mr. K.R. Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy is a court bird. Two other petitions have been preferred today, one by Mr. Indukanth S.Ragade and another by Ms. J.S.N. Nimmu Vasanth, who have also been allowed to intervene in W.P. No.719/07. They also opposed the writ petition mainly on the following grounds :- a) Mr. K.R. Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy is a court bird. He always preferred writ petition for his personal interest and for the purpose of publicity and thus the writ petition cannot be termed to be a litigation in public interest. No relief should be granted in the writ petition filed by the said K.R. Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy. b) According to Mr. Muthukrishnan, if the law is implemented it will affect the citizens right under Article 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution of India and will restrict freedom of movement. He also claimed to be representing 1.5 Crore citizens living in the State of Tamil Nadu, who were opposed to the rules. c) Further, according to him, it infringes personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. d) Ms. J.S.N. Nimmu Vasanth, one of the impleaded respondents also made similar submissions and pointed out the difficulties the two wheeler riders are facing when they are forced to wear headgear (helmets). e) Almost similar plea has been taken by others, who have opposed the writ petition. 4. A number of writ petitions were preferred earlier, one by R. Muthukrishnan, who is the 5th respondent in W.P. No.719/07 and another by Ms. J.S.N. Nimmu Vasanth, who is the 8th respondent in W.P. No.719/07. Those writ petitions, W.P. No.18708/07 and 18665/07 were heard by Division Bench of this Court along with another case and by its common order dated 31st Aug., 2007, rejected all such submissions made and dismissed the writ petitions. Another writ petition, W.P. No.13257/07 challenging G.O. Ms. No.292 dated 22nd Feb., 2007, was also dismissed by this Court on 12th April, 2007. 5. In view of the aforesaid decision rendered by this Court, the objections as raised by R. Muthukrishnan, B. Rajyalakshmi, Mr. Indukanth S. Ragade and J.S.N. Nimmu Vasanth, cannot be accepted and such objections are rejected. 6. So far as W.P. No.6437/04 preferred by CONCERT, a public charitable trust and W.P. No.719/07 preferred by K.R. Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy are concerned, sole prayer was made to direct the respondents to issue appropriate Government Order implementing Section 129 of the MV Act. Indukanth S. Ragade and J.S.N. Nimmu Vasanth, cannot be accepted and such objections are rejected. 6. So far as W.P. No.6437/04 preferred by CONCERT, a public charitable trust and W.P. No.719/07 preferred by K.R. Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy are concerned, sole prayer was made to direct the respondents to issue appropriate Government Order implementing Section 129 of the MV Act. Such order having issued, both these writ petitions have become infructuous. We, accordingly, dismiss W.P. Nos.6437/04 and 719/07 as infructuous. But there shall be no order as to costs. In respect of the other W.P. No.19387/99, there being additional prayer made therein, the said case is separated. The said case, W.P.No.19387 of 1999 be listed on 5th Oct., 2007. Let the copies of common orders passed in these cases, including the present one be kept in the records of W.P. No.19387/99 for ready reference.