IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION P.I.L. P.I.L. P.I.L. NO. 140 OF 2005 NO. 140 OF 2005 NO. 140 OF 2005 J.F. Reibeiro ..Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents ....... Mr. Ganesh Sovani for the Petitioner (Suo Moto) Mr. P.M. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1,3 and 4. ....... CORAM CORAM CORAM : SHRI J.N.PATEL & : SHRI J.N.PATEL & : SHRI J.N.PATEL & SHRI SHRI SHRI K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 20TH AUGUST, 2008. : 20TH AUGUST, 2008. : 20TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C.: . This Petition can be disposed off at the stage of admission itself. 2. Mr. J.F. Reibeiro, a distinguished Police Officer of Indian Police Service, addressed a letter dated 16.11.2005 to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice wherein he drew attention to the news item published on 14th November, 2005 under the caption "Tainted cop is prime accused in fuel scam" and another news item published in Times of India dated 11th November 2005 under the heading "Minister Plays guardian to rogue cop" and highlighted his concern in larger public interest and raised various issues of law in his letter, which we : 2 : need not reproduce. 3. Mr. Reibeiro also annexed copies of news item. This Court took congnizance of the Petition and issued notice to the Respondent-State. In response to the said notice, an affidavit in reply came to be filed by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai dated 15th June, 2006. 4. Having gone through the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent, we find that the services of the concerned Police Officer ultimately stood terminated. This Court is not aware as to whether the said police officer Shri Jagan Pimple has moved the M.A.T. in the matter. 5. Another important issue raised in the matter was relating to issuance of VIP protocol stickers by the traffic police. According to him VIP protocol stickers were issued to the Personal Secretary of the Minister of State for Home Mr. Sidharam Mhetre which were given to their favourites and has questioned as to what are these stickers and what advantage does it give to people to whom such stickers have been issued and has expressed his apprehension that if they are allowed to contravene : 3 : the traffic rules by possessing such stickers, the practice is unconstitutional as it offends the principle of equality before law and also permits some influential people to break the law and that this Court should stop this discriminatory practice. In reply to this allegation made by the Petitioner, in the affidavit in reply the State has specifically mentioned that the decision to issue Protocol Stickers was taken by the Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and that by the Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic) in Mumbai Commissionerate area only and elsewhere in Maharashtra, these stickers are not issued. 6. It has been tried to be justified by stating that system of issuing of protocol badges was started in the year 1979 and was extended to only 6 categories of VVIP and VIPs viz. the Hon’ble Judges of High Court, Mayor, as well as Sherif of Mumbai, Member of Parliament, Member of Legislative Assembly and Legislative Councils and the Secretaries of Government Departments. This was with a view to facilitate the movement of these dignitaries in the event of they using their private cars in the city of Mumbai. 7. It has been submitted that by Government : 4 : Resolution dated 5.5.2005, five additional categories of persons were declared as eligible for protocol stickers and detailed guidelines have come to be issued, which have been spelt out in the affidavit in reply. It has been tried to be justified that by way of courtesy protocol stickers are provided to the dignitaries named in the Government Resolution and they do not allow the holder of the sticker to contravene any of the Traffic Rules. It has been specifically mentioned that these protocol stickers are meant to be needed by the Traffic Police person especially whenever there is problem of parking and / or congestion and that such issuance of protocol stickers do not contravene any of the provision of Constitution nor it offends the principles of equality before law. 8. In the affidavit in reply, though the Respondnet-State has referred as the impugned Government Resolution dated 5.5.2005, the same is not filed before the Court. Further it is claimed that the Government Resolution merely lay down guidelines to be followed such as :- "(i) Period of protocol badge is of one year (January to December). Every year new badges should be issued. : 5 : (ii) Protocol badges will be issued by Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic) on receipt of information in prescribed application form. (iii) The sticker / badge should be struck on the wind shield at the center. (iv) Only one sticker / badge per categorized VIP will be admissible. (v) On transfer of the categorized user or upon the post being abolished, the badge should be returned. (vi) Stickers / badges should be such that no photo copies or duplication can be made. (vii) Protocol stickers would be the property of Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. (viii) Commissioner of Police, Mumbai / Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Mumbai would exercise an overall control on the protocol badges. For this purpose, serial numbers may be mentioned on badges or stickers. The responsibility of maintaining accounts of badges would lie upon the Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic). (ix) Badge / sticker holders will not be exempted from any provision of law, nor will they be entitled to any concession. (x) Badges are not transferable from person to person or one vehicle to another. (xi) The vehicles holding or which have been allotted beacon lights of Red / Amber colour will not be entitled to a protocol sticker. (xii) Protocol badges will not be issued to the persons who do not qualify under the above categories. (xiii) In case of any dispute, the decision of the Government will be final." : 6 : 9. In our view, issuance of such protocol stickers by Government Resolution does not have any justification and in absence of any provision in Statute or Rules definitely amounts to discriminatory treatment meted out to citizens by carving out a privilege category of high ranking officials of the State and elected representatives of the people. Needless to say that whenever such high ranking officials are discharging their official duty they are required to use official vehicles, they are sufficiently identified by providing beacon lights of different colors in accordance with their status which is notified as required under the Motor Vehicle Act. In case these high officials are using their private vehicles, nothing prevents them from showing their identity cards to the Police personnel on duty to facilitate their movement, if the same is required to be done in an emergency. 10. In exercise of its executive power, the State Government can issue general instructions which may look very much alike rules which the government makes in exercise of its Statutory Rule making power which constitute delegated legislation. The instructions issued by the Government under its executive power can supplement, but cannot supplant the Statutory Rules made : 7 : by the Government. The impugned Government Resolution creates a separate and distinct categories of persons conferring on them certain privileges as spelt out in the guidelines. The crucial issue is whether such classification is warranted and is reasonable based on intelligible differentia having nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The principle of equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws stands violated as no persons are more equal than others when it comes to use of public roadways as a normal course for commuting. One can understand giving of preferences to emergency services like ambulances carrying patients in critical condition being taken to hospitals, fire-fighting engines or the movement of police force to regulate law and order. 11. Therefore, this practice of issuing protocol stickers / badges by the Home Department through the Traffic department, Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai or Joint Commissioner of Police Traffic cannot be up-held. The Government Resolution does not satisfy any test to conform its validity as it is nothing but an executive fiat and privilege conferred by the State Government on high official unknown to law. Therefore, the said Government Resolution is quashed and set aside. : 8 : 10. The Petition stands disposed off accordingly. (J.N. (J.N. (J.N. Patel, J.) Patel, J.) Patel, J.) (K.K. (K.K. (K.K. Tated, J.) Tated, J.) Tated, J.)