Dilip Vrajlal Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 12 Jan 2006
Provisions considered
- Bombay Police Act, 1951 s. 33(b)
- Constitution of India art. 19(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the infringement of the right under Article 19 is not so serious or unreasonable as to cross -3- the limits mentioned in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution. In such circumstances, no interference is called…
Judgment
Mr. Rajiv Narula with Mr. D. Mehta, instructed by M/s. Jhangiani, Narula & Associates, for the petitioner. Mr. R.M. Sawant, Government Pleader, with Mr.Amjad Sayyed, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. P.N. Modi with Ms. Bindi Dave and Mr. Kunal Vajani, instructed by M/s.Wadia Ghandy & Co., for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. SMT. CORAM: V.G. PALSHIKAR, Ag. C.J., NISHITA MHATRE, & J. DATE: JANUARY . 12, 2006 P.C. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the Notification issued by the Bombay Police under Section 33 (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, making travel restrictions on certain roads so that the Standard Chartered Mumbai Marathon-2006 takes place smoothly and to the satisfaction of all.
The objection is that this would result in temporary -2- suspension of the fundamental right of the petitioner and may, in a given situation, cause serious harm to the residents along the road.
When this petition was filed, the Press Note, now shown to us, was not in existence. The Press Note is dated 9th January, 2006, in which detailed instructions regarding partial closure of roads along the route of the Marathon are stated. Now, alternate routes available are described on which roads there shall be total, regular traffic ban, roads where the ban is partial are also mentioned and full instructions have been given to the motorists who would like to use these routes during the Marathon is on. The Police have specifically made a note on this programme which reads thus: “In the event of any emergency/urgency to any of the residence the provision has been made to reach the closest junction by using earmarked lane and from there onwards on diverted roads” The note further says that the Police Officers and men on “bandobast” have been sensitised about the arrangement.
In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the infringement of the right under Article 19 is not so serious or unreasonable as to cross -3- the limits mentioned in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution. In such circumstances, no interference is called for. The Petition is rejected.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Police Act, 1951 — s. 33(b); Constitution of India — art. 19(2).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 12 Jan 2006.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.