Petitioner D Gopalakrishnan, a clerk of an advocate in the high court, submitted that the notice issued on the basis of the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA), 1988 does not have any provision for impounding vehicle documents in case of violation.
He said the notice was issued on June 18 on the basis of Section 206 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA), 1988. The act did not mandate impounding of documents for not wearing headgears and moreover there was no reference to the pillion riders, he contended.
Hence he prayed the court to grant interim stay on further proceedings of the public notice.
The petition is expected to come up for hearing tomorrow, a day before the helmet rule is set to come into force.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
