BHARATKUMAR ARVINDKUMAR DAVE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out d a common judgment passed by Justice Ravani. The petitions have been filed by the appellants for quashing and setting aside the order dated 10-6-85 passed by the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad. By that order the Commissioner of Police has prohibited the public from driving two-wheeled vehicles viz. mopeds scooters motor cycles etc. with a pillion rider for a limited period of is days. Now we are told that this has been extended for a further period ending with 31/07/1985. This extension was subject to certain exception wherein the first respondent has given permission to the children women and old people to use the vehicle as a pillion rider. This order was purported to be passed under sec. 33 (1) (b) of the Bombay Police Act 1951 The first respondent in his affidavit to the main petition has stated that such type of order was passed due to the fact that there are disturbances and miscreants have utilized two- wheeled vehicles like scooters motor cycles or even cycles for the purpose of assaults either by knife or by a sharp-edged instrument or for the purpose of throwing acid or burning rags on innocent pedestrians walking or passing on public road or places. That was elaborated in paragraph 10 of the said affidavit.

(2.) These Special Civil Applications were filed by the appellants who wanted to treat this as public interest litigation. The learned Single Judge of our High Court has given his opinion with regard to the public interest litigation and on the legal side he has held that the Commissioner has ample power to pass such orders under sec. 33 of the Bon bay Police Act. Finally the learned Judge has dismissed both the Special Civil Applications against which the present Letters Patent Appeals have been filed.

(3.) We are not endorsing or passing any opinion with regard to the observation made by the learned Single Judge of our High Court on the public interest litigation