High Court · 2009

Heard Sri A. K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and S ri B. J. Talukdar, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam.

2. At the very outset, Sri Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that out of the several prayers made in the writ petition, at this st age, he would confine himself to the prayers contained in paragraph (a) and (b) of the prayer portion of the writ petition. Specifically, in paragraph (a) the w rit petitioner has prayed for directions from the Court for framing of guideline s regarding use of red lights and sirens on Govt. vehicles and for regulation of traffic at the time of VIP movement on public roads. The prayer contained in pa ragraph (b) is for a direction for strict compliance of the Govt. of India notif ication bearing No.S.O.52(E) dated 11.01.2002 and the Govt. of Assam notificatio n bearing No.TMV.438/87/164 dated 12.07.2002.

3. interest litigation, may be usefully recapitulated at this stage. The brief facts ,which had led to the institution of the present public On 8.3.2004, at about 12/12.30 P.M., one of the learned Advocates of the Gauhati High Court and a member of the petitioner Association was returning fro m Ulubari area of the City where he had gone in connection with his professional duties. The Advocate, Sri Dinesh Agarwal, was proceeding to the premises of the Gauhati High Court. On the way, at Ulubari inter-section, the traffic approachi ng the B. Barooah Road was stopped on account of movement of Smti. Sonia Gandhi, the then President of All India Congress Committee. It is the case of the petit ioner Association that after the VIP movement was over some of the motorcycles, scooters and vehicles that had been stopped started moving towards the B. Barooa h Road. Sri Agarwal who was on a motorcycle also tried to move when he was accos ted by one Sri A. Mahanta, a Sub-Inspector of Police. According to the petitione r, there was some exchange of words between Sri Agarwal and the Sub Inspector Ma nahta as a sequel to which Sri Agarwal was assaulted by Sri Mahanta, Sub-Inspect or of police. This led to the filing of an F.I.R. by Sri Agarwal against Sub-Ins pector Sri Mahanta on the basis of which Paltanbazar P.S. Case No.80/2004 under Sections 342/323, IPC was registered. Apparently, over the same incident another F.I.R. was filed against Sri Agarwal on the basis of which Paltanbazar P.S. Cas e No.78/2004 under Sections 279/353/294, I.P.C. was registered. The matter havin g been brought to the knowledge of the petitioner Association, the Association i n an extraordinary general meeting, inter alia, resolved to avail all the legal remedies available to it for the protection of its members. Consequently, this w rit petition has been filed.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition while Paltanbazar P.S. Case No. 80/2004 has ended in F.R., charge-sheet has been submitted against Sri Agarwal i n Paltanbazar P.S. Case No.78/2004. The Court is informed that the trial of the aforesaid case against Sri Agarwal is presently going on. It is, perhaps, on acc ount of the aforesaid developments that have taken place during the pendency of the writ petition that the learned counsel for the writ petitioner Association h as truncated the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.

5. Insofar as the use of red lights and sirens on Govt. vehicles are concer ned it is clear to us that the persons who are entitled to use red lights and si rens are comprehensibly covered by the Govt. of India Notification bearing No.S. O.52(E) dated 11.01.2002 and the Govt. of Assam Notification bearing No.TMV.438/ 87/164 dated 12.07.2002. No further notification extending the category of perso ns who are entitled to use red lights and sirens have been brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Govt. Advocate, Sri B. J. Talukdar. If that be so, there can be no manner of doubt that it is the legal obligation of the appropria te authorities in the State Government to strictly enforce the terms of the afor esaid two Government notifications. In this regard, our attention has also been invited to an earlier order of this Court dated 9.2.2000 in the case of Bijaya N anda Choudhury vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 2000 (3) GLR 159, wher ein, in para 5 of the order, this Court had already issued similar directions. W e are distressed that notwithstanding what has been observed by the Court in Bij aya Nanda Choudhury (supra) full and effective implementation of the said direct ions and the Government notifications referred to above have not materialized. I n this regard, we may point out that insofar Judicial Officers are concerned, un der orders issued by the Registrar General of this Court, all District Judges an d officers of equivalent rank have been debarred from using red lights on their vehicles which was the prevailing practice in vogue for long. The State Governme nt, in our considered view, may meaningfully implement the Govt. notifications i n force in a similar manner.

6. Insofar as the regulation of traffic at the time of VIP movement, Sri T alukdar, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, has categorically stated that for moveme nt of the following persons and no one else traffic on the public roads can be b rought to a halt. The said persons in case of whose movements traffic can be bro ught to a halt are included in a list enclosed as Annexure-B to the additional a ffidavit dated 11th May 2009 filed by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Home & Political Department. The aforesaid persons are (1) Dr. Manmoha n Singh, PM (All States); (2) Shri A.B. Vajpayee, former PM (All States); (3) Sm t. Sonia Gandhi (All States); (4) Shri Rahul Gandhi (All States); (5) Shri P. Ch idambaram, Union Home Minister (All States); (6) Shri L. K. Advani, Leader of Op position (All States); (7) Sri Narendra Modi, CM, Gujarat (All States); (8) Shri Rajnath Singh, MP/RS (All States) and (9) Shri Tarun Gogoi, CM/Assam (In Assam) .

7. Sri Talukdar has further drawn the attention of the Court to the provisi ons contained in Clause VI(6)(e) of the Government of India Memorandum bearing N o.42/VS-I/2006(13) dated 22nd March 2006 enclosed as Annexure-A to the aforesaid additional affidavit dated 11.5.2009. The provisions contained in Clause VI(6)( e) is to the following effect : (cid:28)The traffic should not be held up for more than three minutes. This time limit should be strictly enforced. (cid:29) From the above it is crystal clear that only in the case of movement of the aforesaid nine persons, to the exclusion of any other person, traffic is req uired to be halted and, that too, for a period of three minutes only. The provis ion contained in the aforesaid clause makes it very clear that the time limit of three minutes is required to be strictly enforced. We have also noted that in the decision of this Court in Bijaya Nanda Ch 8. oudhury (supra), referred to earlier, the Court had expressed its anxiety that r egulation of traffic should be done, where necessary, in a manner which causes l east inconvenience to the public. Undoubtedly it is to minimize such inconvenien ce to the people that the identification of the persons in case of whose movemen t traffic can be brought to a halt and the period/ duration for which such traff ic should be halted have been laid down in subsequent Govt. notifications. As th e matter is now covered by the Government of India Memorandum bearing No.42/VS-I /2006(13) dated 22nd March 2006 we are of the view that all authorities of the S tate Government are under an obligation to strictly implement the terms of the O ffice Memorarndum, particularly clause-VI(6)(e) insofar as regulation/ halting o f traffic is concerned. We, therefore, order accordingly.

9. The writ petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms.

10. Copy of this order be furnished to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Law Secretary to the Govt. of A ssam and the Director General of Police, Assam forthwith.