Disposed

Anil Jairam Mahajan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jul 2013PIL/184/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

PIL on behalf of parents whose son died during a trek. Court directed State of Maharashtra to evolve a policy framework to regulate trekking and mountaineering activities, ensure safety, and frame guidelines for unregistered organizations through a meeting of relevant departments.

What did the court decide?

Directions to Principal Secretaries of School Education, Sports, and Tourism Departments to meet and formulate a policy framework; State to advertise safety precautions.

Anil Jairam Mahajan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

PIL184-12.7

1/4

PNP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATOIN NO.184 OF 2007

¶7

Anil Jairam Mahajan and another versus The State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

..Petitioners.

¶9

..Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for the Petitioners. Mr. A.B. Vagyani, AGP for Respondents 1 and 2. Mr. R.V. Paranjpe for the Applicants in CA 58 of 2013.

¶11

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, AND S.C.GUPTE, JJ.

¶12

12 July 2013.

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.). :

¶14

The Petitioners, Mr. Anil Jairam Mahajan and his spouse Mrs. Sunita Anil Mahajan have instituted these proceedings in the public interest seeking that the Government of Maharashtra frame a policy in respect of the issues which are raised in the proceedings.

¶15

The fifteen year old son of the Petitioners, Harshal, went on a trek to Himachal Pradesh in May 2006. The trek was organized by the Third and Fourth Respondents. A batch of trekkers left Pune on 23 May 2006 and the trek commenced on 26 May 2006 at a high altitude. On 30 May 2006 the Petitioners were informed initially that their son was serious and soon thereafter that he had died. A postmortem was conducted by the Medical Superintendent of the Regional Hospital at Kullu on 31 May 2006. The postmortem states that the death was in all likelihood due to pulmonary due odema hypoxia leading to respiratory failure and death. The grievance of the Petitioners is based on this tragic experience. For it is contended by them that the Third and Fourth Respondents had not made adequate arrangements for protecting the safety of the batch of trekkers and though it was represented that a doctor would accompany the expedition, the person deputed did not have life saving drugs or other medical equipment.

PIL184-12.7

2/4

PNP

The Petitioners state that there are over a thousand of unregistered organizations spread over Maharashtra which collect money and organize treks particularly during the school vacations. Many of the organizers are untrained. The Petitioners have fairly not sought any relief of a personal nature arising out of the death of their son in the accident, but in these proceedings in the public interest seek comprehensive directions with a view to ensuring that the occurrence of such tragedies is minimized by an appropriate regulatory framework.

¶20

An Intervention Application has been filed in these proceedings by the Akhil Maharashtra Giryarohakh Mahasangh. The Intervenor states that it was established in 1991 and is registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act in order to support the activity of the adventure sports of trekking and mountaineering. The purpose of the intervention is to assist the Court in formulating regulations so as to ensure that proper precautions are taken while conducting adventure activities in the fields of trekking and mountaineering.

¶21

A large number of tourists from the State of Maharashtra visit other parts of the country, particularly in remote and high altitude areas. Some of them may be experienced trekkers and mountaineers, but perhaps the largest number would be ordinary tourists who have little or no knowledge of the danger of high altitude travel and the precautions that are necessary to be taken. Many such activities are conducted and organized for young students who may not be subject to parental guidance in such expeditions. While we are cognizant of the fact that there may be limitations on a complete regulation of such activities, nonetheless the government must be alive to the need to ensure that such activities are duly channelized through a process of registration and with a view to ensuring that agencies which solicit such business do so subject to stringent safety requirements. The safety of tourists is important, not merely in the context of high altitude travel, but also as a matter of general concern. A large number of women tourists travel within or outside the State and their safety is also a matter of concern. Many school going children also travel during the course of the vacations. Parents who send their children on such expeditions do so in the fond hope that the expedition would be a learning experience. They are

PIL184-12.7

3/4

PNP

unmindful of the grave dangers. The present case involving the two Petitioners is an example in point.

¶26

An earlier order was passed by the Division Bench on 12 December 2012 by which the Indian Mountaineering Foundation was also impleaded as a party to these proceedings. The Division Bench expected the State Government in consultation with the concerned departments of the State and the Central government to evolve a comprehensive policy, guidelines or regulations to regulate the activities of unregistered organizations. The Division Bench also expected that the State Government shall ensure the safety of participants who will be taking part in mountaineering activities, camps, and trekking expeditions. Though well over six months have elapsed, no such policy has been framed as yet by the State government.

¶27

While there is an urgent need for the framing of appropriate guidelines by the State Government equally, it will be now necessary for the Court to issue certain structural directions to ensure that the Principal Secretaries in the concerned departments put their heads together and evolve a suitable framework. The State Government must also take steps to advertise in the media particularly before the onset of vacations in order to ensure that people who proceed on such expeditions are made aware of the pitfalls and of the precautions that must be taken. Such dissemination of information can also take place through schools or colleges with a view to ensuring that both the children and their parents are made aware of the need to observe safety requirements. Primarily the two departments concerned with the issues which are raised in these proceedings are the School Education and Sports Department and the Tourism Department. The issues also do not pertain merely to these departments in the State, but in an appropriate level would also have to be dealt with by the Union Government in the Ministry Tourism. We are of the view that at this stage it would be appropriate to direct that once a copy of this order is made available and communicated by the Learned AGP to the Principal Secretaries of the School Education and Sports Department and the Tourism Department, these officials shall convene a meeting with all the relevant stakeholders including the Intervenors before this Court with a view to formulate an appropriate policy framework. We are not embarking on that process

PIL184-12.7

4/4

PNP

ourselves since that is eminently a matter in which a decision will have to be taken by the State government. We would expect that the issue which relates to the safety of a multitude of tourists would be taken up in all seriousness by the State Government. The Principal Secretaries in the Tourism Department and the School Education and Sports Department shall file a report of compliance after three months when the Petition shall be placed on Board only for the purpose of verifying compliance. In the event that no action is taken in the meantime, we permit the Petitioners to revive the proceedings. We permit the Petitioners to participate in the meetings before the two Principal Secretaries and to place the suggestions which they have on the record. The report to be filed in pursuance of these directions shall be addressed to the Registrar – Judicial on or before 12 October 2013 and the Petition shall be placed for directions on 18 October 2013 before the appropriate Bench for verifying compliance.

¶32

The Petition is accordingly disposed of in these terms. No order as to costs.

Anil Jairam Mahajan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Jairam Mahajan and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Rajendra Eknath Dhande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Arun Digambar Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education Dept and Anr.

Shri. Rajendra Eknath Dhande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Arun Digambar Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education Dept and Anr.

Baban Shankar Khandagale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sameeroddin Ajimoddin Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Sadashiv Kadam Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Pradipkumar S/O Popatlal Vakharia Vs Akola Municipal Corporation Thr. Its Municipal Commissioner, Akola and Another

Shri. Rajendra Eknath Dhande and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Arun Digambar Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education Dept and Anr.

Nilesh Ramesh Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary and Ors.

Akhil Maharashtra Girjarohakh Mahasangh, through Secretary, Shri. Rajan Bagwe Vs Anil Jairam Mahajan and Ors.

Shri. Prashant Jaywant Doshi and Anr. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Smt. Mary John Gomes and Ors. Vs Mrs. Ranjan Sukhtankar and Ors.