Mr.J.P.Ribeiro, I.P.S.(Retd.) Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Others.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

P.I.L. NO. 140 OF 2005

¶3

J.F. Reibeiro

¶4

..Petitioner

¶5

V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

Mr. Ganesh Sovani for the Petitioner (Suo Moto)
Mr. P.M. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1,3 and 4.

¶9

CORAM : SHRI J.N.PATEL &
SHRI K.K.TATED, JJ.
DATE : 20TH AUGUST, 2008.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

.This Petition can be disposed off at the stage
of admission itself.

¶12

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

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

need not reproduce.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

: 3 :

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

7.It has been submitted that by Government

¶22

: 4 :

¶23

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.

¶24

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 :-

¶25

"(i) Period of protocol badge is of one year
(January to December). Every year new badges
should be issued.

¶26

: 5 :

¶27

(ii) Protocol badges will be issued by Joint
Commissioner of Police (Traffic) on receipt of
information in prescribed application form.

¶28

(iii) The sticker / badge should be struck on
the wind shield at the center.

¶29

(iv) Only one sticker / badge per categorized
VIP will be admissible.

¶30

(v) On transfer of the categorized user or upon
the post being abolished, the badge should be
returned.

¶31

(vi) Stickers / badges should be such that no
photo copies or duplication can be made.

¶32

(vii) Protocol stickers would be the property of
Commissioner of Police, Mumbai.

¶33

(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).

¶34

(ix) Badge / sticker holders will not be
exempted from any provision of law, nor will
they be entitled to any concession.

¶35

(x) Badges are not transferable from person to
person or one vehicle to another.

¶36

(xi) The vehicles holding or which have been
allotted beacon lights of Red / Amber colour
will not be entitled to a protocol sticker.

¶37

(xii) Protocol badges will not be issued to the
persons who do not qualify under the above
categories.

¶38

(xiii) In case of any dispute, the decision of
the Government will be final."

¶39

: 6 :

¶40

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.

¶41

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

¶42

: 7 :

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

: 8 :

¶46

10.The Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

¶47

(J.N. Patel, J.)

¶48

(K.K. Tated, J.)

Mr.J.P.Ribeiro, I.P.S.(Retd.) v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.J.P.Ribeiro, I.P.S.(Retd.) v. the State of Maharashtra and 3 Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmi Market Bhajipala Vyapari Sanghatana and Anr. Vs Kalyan Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Kalyan and Ors.

Aniruddha Vasant Bhor Vs the Commissioner - Thane Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Prashant Sakharam Magdum and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prashant Sakharam Magdum and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

New Bombay Advocates Welfare Association and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr.Jitesh Alva Vs Secretary- Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ors.

Prakruti Prayog Parivar and Ors. Vs Kolhapur Municipal Corpn. and Ors.

Dr.Harish Shetty,Presedent,Counselors Association of India.andOTHERS Vs State of Maharashtra and Others.

Mr. Sanjaykumar Ramchandra Yadav Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Suresh Shankar Choudhari Vs the District Collector and Ors.

Aezaaz Akbar Agha and Anr. Vs the Commissioner, Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Jhuri Bihari Mallah and 21ORS. Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

M/S. Csango and 3 Ors. Vs M/S. Navrang Leathers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Ayodhya Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Municipa Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and 6 Ors.