ORDER : K.K. SASIDHARAN, J. 1. The petitioner filed this Writ Petition in pro bono publico, to direct the jurisdictional police to register a criminal case against the seventh and eighth respondents, on account of the act of the eighth respondent in riding a scooter without helmet and against the seventh respondent on account of his rude behaviour inside the Cinema Theatre. 2. This Court having found prima facie case made out by the petitioner in the Writ Petition, issued notice to the respondents. 3. The learned Counsel for the seventh respondent contended that there is no case made out against the seventh respondent for taking action. The Writ Petition was filed on the basis of certain imaginary grounds and as such, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. 4. We have perused the materials produced by the petitioner in respect of his allegation against the seventh respondent. There is no dispute that a complaint was not preferred by the owner of the theatre against the seventh respondent, on account of the so called indecent behaviour inside the cinema theatre on account of the screening of a particular movie. 5. In view of the absence of such materials, we are of the view that no direction can be issued to the police to take action against the seventh respondent. 6. The materials available on record clearly show that the eighth respondent drove the scooter without wearing a helmet. The eighth respondent is a public servant. He is a Minister in the State Cabinet, holding the position of the Minister for Health and Family Welfare. Since the Minister should be a role model for others, we have directed the eighth respondent to file an affidavit indicating the circumstances under which he drove the vehicle without helmet. 7. The eighth respondent filed counter affidavit, indicating that he drove the vehicle in an emergent situation, as the people of the said District were suffering on account of the out-break of dengue. Since, it was an emergent situation, he failed to wear the helmet and the same was not intentional. Paragraph No.4 of the affidavit reads thus: “4. I respectfully state that, as a doctor and a responsible minister, I have also conducted myself in accordance with law as a model citizen always. Since, it was an emergent situation, he failed to wear the helmet and the same was not intentional. Paragraph No.4 of the affidavit reads thus: “4. I respectfully state that, as a doctor and a responsible minister, I have also conducted myself in accordance with law as a model citizen always. However as the necessity to immediately attend to the medical emergency in the villages, I had to travel by two wheeler left with no other option. The said incident is an isolated one and was warranted due to the acute need in public interest. As I had to visit and inspect water stagnated areas and to instruct the officials for redressal of the grievance of the public. I have always worn a helmet while travelling by two wheelers. I had not intentions to violate the law at any point of time. I have always been a law abiding citizen and I also undertake to this Court that I would continue to obey the laws and would wear a helmet in case I had to commute by a two wheeler in future.” 8. We accept the explanation given by the eighth respondent. There was no complaint against the eighth respondent earlier that he drove the scooter without helmet. In view of the explanation given by the eighth respondent, we are of the view that the matter should end here. 9. We hope and trust that the eighth respondent henceforth would not repeat such acts. In fact, the eighth respondent himself has given an undertaking that henceforth he would drive the vehicle with a helmet and there would not be any occasion to make comments against him, on account of the failure to wear helmet. 10. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs.