AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shivaraj Patil, J.—The Petitioner in this petition has sought for punishing the Respondents for disobedience of the order dated 19.4.1996
made by this Court in W.P. No. 449 of 1996. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:
The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the pass holders will not be prevented from travelling in the buses strictly in terms of the
Government Order G.O. Ms. No. 1220 Transport Department dated 18.5.1982 and that the free pass holders shall not be prevented from
travelling in the buses without any restriction. In view of the statement made by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the grievance of the
Petitioner does not survive and the said statement is placed on record.
The above-mentioned Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner seeking Writ of Mandamus for-bearing the Respondents from preventing the
school-going children having season tickets or free pass holders in travelling in any of the bus services run by the Respondent-corporations in the
affidavit filed in support of the Contempt Application, the Petitioner states that inspite of the order passed in this petition and inspite of his giving
notice to the Respondents, they have not given any direction to their sub-ordinates to obey the order of this Court, which amounts to gross
disobedience of the order. Along with the affidavit of the Petitioner, the affidavit of one R.M. Mohan Kumar and parents of two students are also
filed. In the said affidavits, it is stated that on 26.11.1996 at about 4.30 PM a student by name Ms. Pushpa Rani was not permitted to travel in the
bus with a free pass issued by the first Respondent and that R.M. Mohan Kumar, Secretary of the Petitioner-association was present in the bus at
that time. In the affidavit of one Kothandan, it is stated that his son K. Rupakaran had informed him that he was asked to get down from a bus No.
1B(PP) running from Raja Kadai to High Court when he was travelling in the said bus and that was witnessed by Shri. R.M. Mohankumar. In the
affidavit of one Kuppusamy, it is stated that his daughter K. Pushparani is holding free pass issued by the first Respondent for going to and coming
back from the school. She told that when she was travelling in a bus route No. PP 56P, she was asked to get down and that at that time R.M.
Mohankumar, Secretary of the Petitioner-association had witnessed the incident.
The Respondents have filed a common counter affidavit. Thiru. M. Koteeswaran, Managing Director has filed the counter affidavit as the
Managing Director of both Respondents-Corporations. In the affidavit, he has stated that he has utmost respect to this Court and the judiciary and
at the outset he tendered unconditional apology and placed the following facts to assist this Court in deciding this Contempt Application. It is
submitted that Point to Point Services (PP) or Limited Stop Services (LSS) are operated as faster services; depending on the general demand.
These PP and LSS Services skip few bus stops and reach the destination early unlike the ordinary services, which halt at every bus stop. For the
better services provided, the Corporations charge 1.25 times more than the ordinary fare for P.P. Services and 20 paise over and above the
ordinary fare for L.S.S. Services. Introductions of P.P. and L.S.S. or Express Buses did not mean that the ordinary fare buses were done away
with. It is, further submitted that by and large Express Bus timings do not coincide with the school timings. In this view, when free travel for the
school-going children were announced by the Government, passes were issued with restriction. Condition 1 and 3 found on the reverse of the free
passes season tickets for the academic year 1995-96 are as follows:
i) ''This ticket is valid for the period for which it is issued on all City and Town Routes of PTC/DATC except in (a) City Express Services (b)
Night Services (c) Chartered Trips (d) Workers'' Specials (e) Specials operated for Temples, Fairs and Festivals (f) Battery Operated Traction
Motor Vehicles (g) Pokit to Pokit Services, ii) The holder shall, on entering a bus to perform a journey, produce this ticket to the conductor for
punching. The holder shall produce this ticket when demanded by the conductor or any official of the Corporation. Failure to do so will render the
holder liable to pay penalty equal to the value often times the actual fare for journey from the place where the bus commenced the trip, as per G.O.
Ms. No. 1220, Home Transport Department dated 18.5.82.
3.A. When the order was passed by this Court on 19.4.1996 in the Writ Petition above-mentioned, on instructions, the learned Additional
Government Pleader submitted to the Court that pass-holders will not be prevented from travelling in the buses strictly in terms of the Government
Order G.O. Ms. No. 1220 Transport Department Dated 18.5.1982. When this Court passed the order on 19.4.1996, the issue was only
pertaining to school-going children and the conditions related for the academic year 1995-96. Thereafter, free passes were issued to the school-
going children for the academic year 1996-97 which commenced in June 1996 with the changed conditions. As per the said conditions, school
going-children with the present free passes could board any bus of both PTC and D.A.T.C without any restriction. It is further stated in the
Counter affidavit that the conditions which existed for free pass holders for the academic year 1995-96 had been removed subsequent to the order
of this Court dated 19.4.1996 for the academic year 1996-97 and 1997-98. The free passes issued for the academic year 1995-96 were valid till
30th April 1996 and no disobedience of the order of this Court was complained. The complaint of the Petitioner relates to the incidents said to
have taken place on 26.11.1996 i.e. the period covered by the academic year 1996-97 by which time, the conditions were changed and for that
period fresh free passes were issued with the conditions different from the conditions that were existing for the academic year 1995-96. With
regard to para 3 of the affidavit filed by the Petitioner, in support of the Contempt Application, it is stated that it does not disclose the registration
number of the bus or the fleet number or the conductor''s identity. Eight buses ply as PP buses in Route No. 56 P with a scheduled frequency of
25 minutes which would vary depending upon the rush and the traffic conditions. However, the Assistant Branch Manager (Traffic) of the Branch
made oral enquiries with the conductors and they have denied of the incidents alleged to have taken place on 26.11.1996. A letter dated
22.5.1997 addressed to General Manager (Operation) of the first Respondent-Corporation is annexed to the Counter Affidavit. Issuing of free
passes without any condition itself indicates the management stand to the free pass holders as well as to the concerned staff that the school-going
children are free to board any bus. It is denied that the staff of the Respondent-Corporations refused permission to allow the free pass holding
school students from travelling in PP buses. Further, both the Respondent-corporations put together have about 180 PP buses in operation daily
and there had been no similar complaints. Even assuming without admitting that the complaint of the Petitioner was true, it was an isolated case, by
which itself it cannot be said that the Corporations have committed contempt of the order of this Court. After issuing passes without any
conditions, the Respondents have reiterated their stand by issue of a circular dated 28.12.1996 bringing to the notice of the concerned staff the
absence of any restrictions for the academic year 1996-97. Under the circumstances, it is submitted that the Respondent-Corporations have no
intention to commit any contempt or have committed any contempt or disobeyed the order of this Court dated 19.4.1996.
The Petitioner party in person in his arguments reiterated the statements made in the affidavits filed in support of the contempt application. The
learned Counsel for the Respondents based on the counter affidavit filed, urged that there was no disobedience of the order of this Court either
intentionally or otherwise. He submitted that after the order was passed by this Court on 19.4.1996, the conditions, which existed for the pass
holders for the academic year 1995-96 were removed enabling the free pass holders to travel by any bus. After the expiry of the academic year,
the passes issued for that year were not valid beyond 30th April 1996; even a circular dated 28.12.1996 was issued in this regard bringing to the
notice of the concerned staff of the absence of any restrictions for academic year 1996-97. This clearly indicated that the Respondents did not
disobey the order of this Court as complained by the Petitioner. No incident took place as complained by the Petitioner on 26.11.1996 which is
clear from the latter dated 22.5.1997 of the Assistant Branch Manager (Traffic) addressed to the General Manager (Operations) of the
Respondent No. 1 Corporation. He pointed out the discrepancies of vagueness contained in the affidavits filed in support of the petition.
I have considered the submissions made by the Petitioner/party in person and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. The free passes issued
for the academic year 1995-96 undisputedly were valid for a period of one year ending on 30th April, 1996. Thereafter, fresh free passes were
issued for the academic year 1996-97 removing the restrictions for travelling by particular buses thereby allowing the school going children to
travel by any bus of the Respondent-Corporations which only indicates that the Respondents did not have any intention to disobey the order of this
Court. It is stated that 180 PP buses of both the Corporations put together are in operation daily. Except the complaint of the incident on
26.11.1996, no specific complaint is brought to the notice of either the authorities or of this Court. The letter of the Assistant Branch Manager
(Traffic) dated 22.5.1997 shows that no incident took place on 26.11.1996 at 4:30 p.m. regarding students not having been permitted to travel in
route No. 56P(PP). In the affidavit of the Petitioner filed in support of the contempt application, he refers to the affidavit filed by R.M.
Mohankumar, the Deputy Secretary (General) of the Petitioner-Association and the supporting affidavits of the parents of the affected students.
The said affidavit by itself does not give details or particulars of the incident. In the affidavit of R.M. Mohan Kumar, it is stated that on 26.11.1996
at about 4.30 PM a student by name Ms. Pushparani was not permitted to travel in the bus 56 P (PP) of the Respondent-Corporation for going to
school and he was present in the bus at that time. Kothandan in his affidavit has stated that his son told him that he was asked to get down from a
bus route No. IB (PP) even though he had free pass, and this was witnessed by R.M. Mohankumar Secretary of the Petitioner-Association. This
affidavit does not give the date or time of the incident. It is relevant to state here that in the affidavit of Shri R.M. Mohan Kumar, no reference is
made about this incident of asking K. Rupakaran, son of Kothandan to get down from the bus. In the affidavit of Kuppuswamy, it is stated that his
daughter K. Pushparani was holding free pass for going to and coming back from the school and when she was travelling in a bus route No.
56P(PP) bearing registration No. TDA 096 at 4:30 P.M., she was asked to get down. This affidavit again does not give the date of the incident.
As noticed by the Assistant Branch Manager (Traffic) of the Respondent-Corporation in his letter dated 22.5.1997 after enquiry, has categorically
stated that no incident took place as alleged on 26.11.1996 at 4:30 P.M. The affidavits filed in support of this Contempt application do not give
sufficient details or particulars such as registration number of the bus or fleet number or conductors'' identity, particularly so when in route No. 56
P(PP) with a scheduled frequency of 25 minutes 8 buses ply as PP buses. It is also clear from the paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit that even a
circular dated 28.12.1996 was issued bringing to the notice of the staff about the absence of any restriction in the passes for the academic year
1996-97. In the reply affidavit filed by the Petitioner, it is stated that the Petitioner would be satisfied, if the Respondents are permitted to put a
board in all buses to the effect that there would be no conditions to enable the free pass holders to travel in any of the buses of the Respondents.
Under the circumstances, I find it difficult to hold that the Respondents have disobeyed the order of this Court dated 19.4.1996 passed in W.P.
No. 449 of 1996. On the other hand, the Respondents have even issued a circular dated 28.12.1996, as already stated above so as to allow the
free pass holders to travel in any bus. In the circular dated 28.12.1996, all the Branch Managers are requested to instruct through Assistant Branch
Manager (Traffic) to all conductors and drivers to the effect that all school-going children holding free pass should be permitted to travel in all LSS
and PP services between the destinations as mentioned in the free pass. In these circumstances, the application is liable to be dismissed and
accordingly it is dismissed.