Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 808 (MP)

Little Angels High School v. State of M. P.

2018-09-20

SHEEL NAGU

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. Writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked to assail the order dated 18/9/18 (Annexure P/1) passed by Regional Transport Officer Gwalior prohibiting operation of all the school buses owned and hired by the petitioner till deficiencies found in some of the buses, are not removed. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on admission. 3. Leaned counsel for the petitioners Shri S.K. Dwivedi and Shri Shriniwas Gajendragadkar questioning the aforesaid impugned order submits that in respect of all the school buses operated by the petitioner for transporting students to and fro between the school and their residence had been successfully subjected to fitness test and certificate in terms of section 56 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (1988 Act for brevity) was issued by RTO Gwalior which is the same authority which has issued the fitness certificate which are still subsisting till date. Besides, it is also submitted that petitioner is more conscious and sensitive than the respondent authority towards the safety of it's students. In continuation, it is submitted that all the drivers operating the school buses owned and hired by the petitioner are frequently subjected to eye test, the school buses have been duly fixed with speed governors and further that all the buses are duly registered with the competent authority and run on valid permit issued under the 1988 Act, besides following all pollution norms. In this factual background, it is submitted that merely finding certain deficiencies in 16 school buses mentioned in the impugned order, the respondents have no authority in law to prohibit operation of all school buses owned and hired by the petitioner school. It is submitted that by doing so students are unable to reach the school and have to be dropped and picked up by their parents who are thus subjected to great inconvenience and avoidable expenses. It is also submitted that name and reputation earned by the petitioner school which is one of the premier institution in Gwalior region imparting school education from primary to higher secondary level, has suffered irreparably. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has drawn attention of this court to the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M.C. Mehta Vs. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has drawn attention of this court to the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1998) 1 SCC 676 and the consequential directions issued by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Government of India laying down 14 safety norms to be strictly followed by school buses carrying children. It is submitted that the Central Board of Secondary Education which is the affiliating body has directed all affiliated school to follow the norms laid down by the Apex Court, failing which the school concerned may face adverse action including disaffiliation. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 18/9/18 (Annexure P/1) issued by RTO Gwalior reveals that on 3/7/18 an inspection was carried out of 10 school buses operated by the petitioner which were found not complying with the minimum requisite safety norms. The RTO Gwalior prohibited plying of these 10 buses till they satisfy the safety norms. The impugned order further discloses that two months thereafter on 18/9/18, another inspection was carried out which revealed that 16 school buses operated by the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite norms, details of which are given in tabular illustration contained in the impugned order. The deficiencies shown in the impugned order relate to school buses running on remoulded inferior quality tyres, second mandatory door missing, second mandatory door jammed, speed governors found tampered to increase the maximum permissible speed from 40 kph to 65/70 kph, emergency exit missing, permit having expired, emergency exist blocked by a seat, use of pressure horn, cracked rear windshield and the buses hired by petitioner having agreement with some other school management. 5.1 After noticing above deficiencies in complying with safety norms, RTO Gwalior keeping in view the consideration of safety of school going children and public interest prohibited operation of all school buses owned and hired by the petitioner till deficiencies are removed. Lastly, the impugned order directed that any further violation by the school buses operated by the petitioner shall invite penal action including registration of offence and initiation of proceedings for disaffiliation of the school. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, this court is of the considered view that the order impugned does not violate any particular constitutional, statutory or civil right of the petitioner. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, this court is of the considered view that the order impugned does not violate any particular constitutional, statutory or civil right of the petitioner. In fact the impugned order is an attempt on the part of the RTO Gwalior who is the statutory authority under the 1988 Act to ensure compliance of provisions of the Act and Rules framed there under, by asking the petitioner to comply with the legal provisions which includes directions of Apex Court which are law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 society which runs the said school are statutorily obliged to comply with all the requisites of 1988 Act and Rules framed there under while operating the school buses by ensuring compliance of necessary safety norms and providing all the facilities in school buses which are essential for safe transportation of school going children to and fro between the school and their residence. In this regard there can be no compromise. 6.1 The safety of school going children is the paramount consideration which should be the driving force for not only the school management but also for the statutory authorities under the 1988 Act and Rules framed there under while dealing with operation of school buses. 6.2 This court has no manner of doubt that merely by asking the petitioner to comply with all the safety norms to ensure safe operation of school buses there can be no cause of action available to the petitioner. 6.3 The argument of the petitioner that because of prohibition imposed on all the school buses owned and hired by the petitioner, the students and their parents suffer inconvenience, this court may only observe that in order to ensure safety of school going children any inconvenience or discomfiture to the school or to the parents deserves to be ignored. 6.4 The consideration of safety of life of school going children is paramount and is all pervading and thus prevails upon all other considerations. 6.5 The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that on discovery of safety norms deficiencies merely in 16 school buses, prohibition cannot be imposed in respect of entire fleet of buses being operated by the petitioner school without there being any allegation that the remaining also suffered from safety norms deficiencies, appears to be ostensibly attractive. 6.5 The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that on discovery of safety norms deficiencies merely in 16 school buses, prohibition cannot be imposed in respect of entire fleet of buses being operated by the petitioner school without there being any allegation that the remaining also suffered from safety norms deficiencies, appears to be ostensibly attractive. However, if the said contention is accepted, then this court would allow operation of those remaining school buses which may or may not suffer from safety norms deficiencies. If those buses in actuality do not suffer from safety norms deficiencies, then the question of the impugned order being vitiated to that extent may arise. But on the other hand if these remaining school buses which have not been inspected are permitted to ply and carry school going children without verifying presence or absence of safety norm deficiencies then this court would be jeopardizing the life of the school going children. The balance of convenience thus waives heavily against allowing the petitioner to operate even those school buses which have not been inspected yet. 7. In view of above, this court declines interference in the present matter and dismisses the present petition at the admission stage itself with liberty to the petitioner to seek permission from the competent authority under the 1988 Act and Rules framed there under for lifting the prohibition on operation of school buses after ensuring compliance of all the safety norms prescribed to the satisfaction of the RTO gwalior. 8. Disturbing feature has come to light in the present case which deserves consideration at the hands of this court lest this court may be blamed of failing to do complete justice. It is noticeable from the record that school buses owned and hired by the petitioner school bearing registration Nos. MP06B1685, MP06P0182, MP07F0871, MP07P0915, MP09FA3585, MP07P0582, MP0P0121, KA04B7545, MP07P1630 and MP06B1767 were recently issued fitness certificates u/S. 56 of 1988 Act by RTO Gwalior for a period of one year and these very school buses have been found during the inspection carried out on 3/7/18 and 18/9/18 to be suffering from serious fitness deficiencies in regard to safety norms. This clearly indicates that the fitness certificate was issued in favour of these school buses without any application of mind. This clearly indicates that the fitness certificate was issued in favour of these school buses without any application of mind. It is a serious lapse on the part of the statutory authority u/S. 58 of the 1988 Act which belies the trust reposed upon statutory authorities. 9. Failure to discharge statutory duty is prima facie visible on the face of the record which needs to be adjudicated upon but since the same relates to the field of public interest and not personal interest and this bench having no jurisdiction to dwell upon the issue of public interest, it is deemed appropriate to direct the Registry to place this matter before appropriate authority/Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this court for appropriate orders to convert the present petition into PIL if thought appropriate. 10. With the aforesaid liberty, this petition stands dismissed. 11. Case be placed before the Principal Registrar for doing the needful as per para 9 supra.