STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. INDIAN FOREST SERVICE ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellants and also heard Mr. K. N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11. 6. 2001 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in W. P. (C) No. 565 of 1999. The writ petitioner, the Indian Forest Service Association, Tripura Unit, represented by its General Secretary, challenged the following notification dated 1. 3. 1999 under No. 3235-3310/sp (T)/rsv-44/98, notification dated 12. 4. 1999 under No. F. 8 (2)-TRANS/83 (L), notification dated 30. 1. 1999 under No. F. 26 (12)-SA/76 (P) and notification dated 27. 11. 1998 under No. F. 13 (2)-TRANS/94, on the ground of arbitrariness and discrimination. The notification dated 11. 3. 1999 had been superceded by the notification dated 12. 4. 1999 which was issued by the Government in exercise of powers given under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 108 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, wherein the list of dignitaries entitled to use red lights in front of the car and the vehicles escorting such vehicles have been identified and specified. The relevant rule enabling the Government to specify the high dignitaries is as follows :-

(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant, by the aforesaid Rule, respective State Governments and Central Government have been given the discretion to specify the vehicles carrying the dignitaries to be fitted with red lights by taking into various consideration like constitutional position of the office, administrative hierarchy, responsibility attached to the post/office, nature of duty and functions to be discharged etc. While doing so, submits by Mr. Das, the authority has also kept in mind the respective orders of precedence prepared by the Central Government and the State Government. Thus, inclusion or exclusion of any office or posts in the list of dignitaries specified under sub-rule (iii) of Rule 108 of the Rules, does not violate any law or right of an individual nor does it deprive the right of any person, leave alone the right of any member of the petitioner's association. Secondly, it is also submitted that the notification dated 30. 01. 1999, referred to above, is only a guideline for providing accommodation in the Government Houses/bhawans outside Tripura, keeping in view the limited availability of Suites/vip Rooms in the Government houses and the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests has been included in the category of officers entitled to occupy suite. This notification does not give any right to any individual officer, dignitary, constitutional office holder and Government employee nor does it take away any right from any of them. The third notification dated 27. 11. 1998 relates to priority seats in Indian Airlines flights from Agartala to Kolkata. The issue raised in this notification has become redundant in view of the availability of several flights connecting Agartala with the rest of the country and both the parties have not pressed this issue and, as such, this issue does not merit further consideration of this Court.