Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 101 (UTT)

Tarun Vijay v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-03-02

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. This is a writ petition filed in public interest. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw our attention to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhay Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, reported in 2013 (15) SCALE 26 . Therein, the Apex Court went into various issues relating to the use of signs and symbols such as lights and convoys/escorts by public servants and persons. It was contended that the use of such insignia is contrary to the constitutional ethos and the basic feature of republicanism enshrined in the Constitution. The Apex Court finally disposed of the matter and held that the motor vehicles carrying high dignitaries specified by the Central Government and their counterparts specified by the State Government can use the red lights; but the red lights, with or without flasher, can be used only while the specified high dignitary is on duty and not otherwise. The court, in paragraph 25, held as follows: “25. In the result, we hold as under: 1. The term “high dignitaries” used in proviso (iii) to Rule 108(1) of the 1989 Rules takes within its fold the holders of various posts, positions and offices specified in the Constitution. 2. The motor vehicles carrying “high dignitaries” specified by the Central Government and their counterparts specified by the State Government may be fitted with red lights but the red lights with or without flasher can be used only while the specified high dignitary is on duty and not otherwise. 3. The State Governments and Administration of Union Territories cannot enlarge the scope of the term “high dignitaries” beyond what is prescribed in clauses ‘c’ and ‘d’ of Notifications dated 11.1.2002 and 28.7.2005 issued by the Central Government. Therefore, they shall amend the relevant rules and notifications to bring them in tune with the 1989 Rules and notifications dated 11.1.2002 and 28.7.2002 issued by the Central Government. This exercise must be completed within a period of three months. 4. Therefore, they shall amend the relevant rules and notifications to bring them in tune with the 1989 Rules and notifications dated 11.1.2002 and 28.7.2002 issued by the Central Government. This exercise must be completed within a period of three months. 4. The men in uniform; operational agencies which require un-hindered access to the roads for performance of their duty; those engaged in emergency duties such as ambulance services, fire services, emergency maintenance etc, and police vehicles used as escorts or pilots or for law and order duties shall not be entitled to have red lights but lights of other colours, e.g., blue, white, multicoloured etc. 5. No motor vehicles except those specified in Rule 119(3) of the 1989 Rules or similar provisions contained in the rules framed by the State Governments or the Administration of Union Territories shall be fitted with multi-toned horns giving a succession of different notes or with any other sound producing device giving an unduly harsh, shrill, loud or alarming noise. 6. The police officers and other authorities entrusted with the task of enforcing the provisions of the 1988 Act and the Rules framed thereunder must discharge their duties without any fear or favour and should impose appropriate penalty on those who violate the prohibition contained in Rule 108(1) and Rule 119 and similar rules framed by the State Governments and the Administration of Union Territories. The owners/users of the vehicles fitted with multitoned horns other than those allowed to use such horns under Rule 119(3) of the 1989 Rules or corresponding rules framed by the State Governments and the Administration of the Union Territories shall, within a period of one month from today, remove the multi-toned horns. The officers authorised to enforce the provisions of the 1988 Act and the rules framed thereunder by the Central Government, the State Governments and the Administration of Union Territories shall also ensure that multi-toned horns are removed from all the vehicles except those specified in rule 119(3) of the 1989 Rules or corresponding rules framed by the State Governments and the Administration of Union Territories. 7. The Chief Secretaries of all the States and the Administrators of Union Territories shall cause a notice published in the newspapers having wide circulation in their respective States and the Union Territories incorporating the directions contained in this order.” 4. 7. The Chief Secretaries of all the States and the Administrators of Union Territories shall cause a notice published in the newspapers having wide circulation in their respective States and the Union Territories incorporating the directions contained in this order.” 4. As far as the use of horns and the second prayer is concerned, the learned Advocate General would submit that this is a matter, which is governed by the Rules and the use of such horns is proscribed. He would submit that the Rules in this regard will be strictly implemented. 5. Coming to prayer No. 1, the learned Advocate General would submit that the Government has actually issued a Circular dated 2nd September, 2013, as per which, the issue relating to use of nameplates by public officers in their private vehicles has been dealt with. He would submit that the terms of the said Circular will be strictly enforced. 6. Then, learned counsel for the petitioner would point out to the problem of various persons, who are not public officers, using their nameplates. The learned Advocate General would submit that, regarding the use of nameplates by persons other than public officers, the issue will be considered by the second respondent and a decision in terms of law will be taken in the matter. 7. We record the above submissions made by the learned Advocate General and also direct that the decision, which has been promised to be taken by the second respondent, will be taken within a period of six weeks. If need arises, we leave it open to the petitioner to approach this Court again. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of.