Hyderabad: Saying that the steps taken by Telangana and AP governments over the implementation of the helmet rule were not satisfactory, the Hyderabad High Court on Monday granted three more weeks to the two governments to take effective steps to enforce the circulars making wearing of helmet by two-wheeler riders compulsory.
A division bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale and Justice S.V. Bhatt, was dealing with a petition by Vudataneni Rama Rao of Ranga Reddy district seeking to declare the failure of the authorities in implementing Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 430 and 486 of the AP Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which are enforceable with effect from September 1, 1989, as illegal.
While referring to the effective implementation of the helmet rule in cities like Delhi and Mumbai, the bench asked the governments of both the states to continuously launch special drives and take action, including booking of cases and cancellation of licence of those who ride two-wheelers without helmet.
The bench said “during our recent visit to Adilabad in TS, we noticed that no two-wheeler rider was wearing a helmet. Even we are not happy with the situation in AP state. Both states have failed in implementing the rule effectively.”
The bench posted the matter to February 22 for further hearing.
While refusing to grant an interim order staying the decision of the TS government extending financial assistance to IAS officer Smitha Sabharwal to meet the legal expenses in a defamation case against the management of Outlook magazine, the Hyderabad High Court on Monday admitted the petitions questioning the decision.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale and Justice S.V. Bhatt was dealing with separate PILs filed by K. Eshwar Rao and Vattsala Vidyasagar and a writ petition by Outlook Publishing (India) Pvt Ltd challenging the GO issued on August 28, 2015, sanctioning Rs 15 lakh to Ms Smitha , additional secretary in the CMO, for payment of court fee and expenses for filing a civil suit seeking damages of Rs 10 crore from the management of the magazine for publishing a news report along with a cartoon allegedly to defame her.
Rejecting the contention of counsel appearing for the magazine that an apology has already been tendered, the bench said that the report lacked dignity and said, “Responsibility lies on everyone to uphold dignity of women. This court is not satisfied with the report carried in the magazine”.
The bench said, “We are aware that an apology is carried insignificantly when compared to reports which can hurt the sentiments and feelings of others and there is hard chance that the apology is seen by everyone.’
The bench pointed out that the official has every right to move a defamation case against the magazine despite it tendering an apology.
The bench felt that there was nothing wrong in extending financial assistance to an official by the government as it also extends compensation in various cases. The case was posted for final hearing.
