P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J.

( 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

( 4 ) COMING to the legal aspect of the case it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the order passed by the first respondent herein will not come under the purview of sec. 33 of the Bombay Police Act. Sec. 33 of the Bombay Police Act gives power to make rules or regulations for traffic for preservation of order in public place etc. Sec. 33 (1) (b) reads as follows:"33 (1) The Commissioner with respect to all or any of the following matters specified in this sub-section. . . . . . . make alter or rescind rules or orders not inconsistent with this Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c) regulating traffic of all kinds in streets and public places and the use of streets and public places by persons riding driving cycling walking of leading or accompanying cattle 50 as to prevent danger obstruction or inconvenience to the public. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that this will not include prohibiting the pillion rider on the two-wheeled vehicles to ride. We are afraid we are not able to appreciate this argument. Sec. 33 (1) (b) definitely states regulating traffic of all kinds in streets and public places. That will include regulating such type of traffic and it can be easily construed that the pillion rider also is a person who is using the vehicle and riding the vehicle. Regulating traffic of all kinds in streets and public places is the power conferred upon the Commissioner and the very same sub- section also gives power to the Commissioner to regulate as regards the use of streets and public places etc. etc. Hence prohibiting the pillion rider will come under the regulation of all traffic in streets and public places as envisaged by sec. 33 (1) (b ).

( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants then pointed out sec. 33 (6) of the Bombay Police Act and said any rule that has been made by the Commissioner ought to have followed the procedure set

Click Here to Read the rest of this document