1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Anil Chandra and learned Additional Advocate General No. Ill, Sri Ganga Prasad Roy on behalf of Respondent State.

2. By this writ petition the Petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the entrance instruction, 1991, as contained in Annexure 2, through which a direction has been issued to the Advocate to take entrance pass for appearance before the authorities for attending cases in the Secretariat premises. Prayer has also been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to exclude the advocates and their clerks from obtaining entrance pass for their appearance before the authorities in connection with hearing of the case and also for a direction to the authorities concerned to refund the amount of Rs. 10/- (Rupees ten) which has been collected from the Petitioner as fine on 12.1.98 and also to quash the order imposing the said fine.

3. Having heard learned Counsel and on perusing the petition as also the counter affidavit, we are of the opinion that considering the administrative exigency in general and for maintaining the security of the officers and the Constitutional functionaries in the Secretariat premises in particular, the executive instruction has been issued that before entering into the Secretariat premises entrance pass is required to be obtained.

4. Nothing has been brought to our notice that these instructions are volatile of any statutory rule or any fundamental right. No doubt the advocates, as a class, are the officers of the court, but reasonable restriction can be imposed and if these instructions are tested with the touchstone keeping in view the public tranquility and for maintaining safety, the same can not be said to be unjustified.

5. Similar instructions have been issued with respect to entry in the State Secretariat all over the country including in Central Secretariat, New Delhi as also in other important offices.

6. All these instructions are issued for the safety of the people in general. Therefore, these instructions can not be said to be unjustified.

7. However, imposition of any punishment may be by way of fine or awarding jail sentence resulting in penal consequence must be supported by statutory provision or rules framed under the statute.

8. Sri Ganga Prasad Roy, learned Additional Advocate General No. Ill could not place any statutory provision by which he can justify the imposition of fine of Rs. 10/- on he Petitioner or awarding of jail sentence on the basis of the documents.

9. consequently the order for imposing fine or awarding jail sentence vide Annexure-1 as also the order as contained in Annexure-4 by which Rs. 10/- was recovered from the Petitioners as fine are hereby quashed and the said amount be refunded to the Petitioner together with a cost of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees one thousand) within one month.

10. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.