Dismissed

Y.a.Praveen v. Headmaster

Kerala HC14 Jun 2019WP(C)/7588/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition filed by a married couple operating a taxi for the 'Gothrasaradhi Scheme' tribal transport. The court upheld the Headmaster's decision to prevent a spouse, who had criminal antecedents including a rape acquittal and conviction, from driving, prioritizing child safety over contractual technicalities.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking directions to permit the petitioner to drive the scheme vehicle was dismissed.

Y.a.Praveen Vs Headmaster — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.7588 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 Y.A.PRAVEEN AGED 46 YEARS

¶8

S/O.ADIRAJU GOWDER, YOGIMOOLA HOUSE, NEERVARAM P.O., MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶9

2 DEEPA V.N.,

¶10

W/O.PRAVEEN, YOGIMOOLA HOUSE, NEERVARAM P.O., MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 HEADMASTER, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NEERVARAM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT- 670721.

¶14

2 GOTHRASARADHI MONITORING COMMITTEE, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, NEERVARAM P.O., MANANTHAVADY- 670721, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER.

¶15

3 TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY, NEERVARAM P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT- 670645.

¶16

SMT. B VINITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.7588 of 2019 2

¶19

C.R

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Petitioners are husband and wife and according to them, their only source of income is the charges received from running a taxi jeep bearing Registration No. KL05 J4950. State Government has introduced a scheme commonly known as 'Gothrasaradhi Scheme' for the benefit of the tribal students in Wayanad District. As per the said scheme, the tribal students were provided with travelling facilities from their dwelling houses to the school every day and back. Since the dwelling houses of the

¶22

tribal students are situated in hilly terrains, a four wheel jeep can only be used for taking the students to the School and back. The 2^nd petitioner was the successful bidder for the previous academic years as well as the current academic year. At the same time, the 1^st respondent is not permitting the 1^st petitioner to drive the vehicle, hence the

¶23

petitioners find it difficult to hire a driver in

¶24

WP(C).No.7588 of 2019 3

¶25

order to fulfill the obligations based on the 'Gothrasaradhi Scheme'. It is also pointed out that, the 2^nd respondent on the basis of an anonymous complaint orally informed the 1^st petitioner that, he will not be allowed to drive the vehicle. It is also projected that, 1^st petitioner has produced police clearance certificate as well as an order of the Tribal Welfare Officer in that regard. In spite of all these, the 2^nd respondent is not permitting the 1^st petitioner to drive his vehicle. It is thus seeking the following directions this writ petition is filed:-

¶26

i) To issue a writ of mandamus; or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1^st respondent to permit the petitioner to drive his vehicle bearing registration No.KL05 J4950 which is exclusively driven for the Gothrasaradhi Scheme sponsered by the Government of Kerala.

¶27

ii) To declare that the PTA of the Government Higher secondary School, Neervaram, has no authoirty to take a decision in the matter, which is exclusively coming under the domain of the monitoring committee viz.the 2^nd respondent herein.

¶28

In accordance with the directions issued by

¶29

this Court, the 1^st respondent has submitted a

¶30

WP(C).No.7588 of 2019 4

¶31

report before this Court, wherein it is stated that complaints were received against the 1^st petitioner and he was warned however, inspite of the warning he was indulging himself in other criminal activities

¶32

and the transportation of the children by the 1^st

¶33

petitioner cannot be permitted. It is also pointed

¶34

out that, the 1^st petitioner while driving the vehicle is in the habit of using mobile phone. So

¶35

also other illegalities are pointed out in the report submitted by the Headmaster. It is also

¶36

stated thereunder that, 1^st petitioner was involved in many criminal cases and he was an accused in a rape case, true ended in acquittal. However, 1^st petitioner was convicted in C.C.No.286/2006 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mananthavady, under Sections 341 and 324 of IPC evident from Ext.P5 judgment.

¶37

petitioners and the learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record. The paramount contention advanced by learned counsel for

¶38

WP(C).No.7588 of 2019 5

¶39

the petitioners is that, the 1^st respondent Headmaster or the Parents Teachers Association has no authority to prohibit the 1^st petitioner from driving the vehicle, and the stand adopted by the 1^st respondent that the 1^st petitioner will not be permitted to drive the vehicle, cannot be sustained under law being arbitrary and illegal. That apart it

¶40

is contented that, the Tribal Officer is the authority to take a decision in the matter, and the Tribal Officer has issued Ext.P3 communication dated 01.11.2018 to the Headmaster of the school concerned

¶41

stating that, since the cases against the 1^st petitioner is over, the 1^st petitioner can be permitted to drive the vehicle. On the other hand learned Government Pleader submitted that, since the

¶42

duty entrusted to the 2^nd petitioner who is the successful bidder is to transport the tribal students from the interior forest area to the school and back, the authorities are of the opinion that it

¶43

is not safe to permit the 1^st petitioner to drive the vehicle, consequent to the antecedents that are

¶44

WP(C).No.7588 of 2019 6

¶45

observed by the respondents.

¶46

I have evaluated the situations, taking

¶47

into account the pleadings put forth, the report, as well as the arguments advanced by the respective counsel, and I am of the considered opinion that Headmaster of a school is functioning as loco parentis and therefore every duty is cast upon the Headmaster to ensure that the students are attending the school and going back to their respective houses safely. Therefore, a person like the petitioner who was involved in serious offences cannot be permitted to drive the vehicle, wherein the tribal students are transported. I do not think there is any illegality or arbitrariness in such a stand adopted by the Headmaster, since he is responsible for the students attending the school. It is also pointed in the report submitted before this Court that, the driving of the vehicle by the 1^st petitioner was opposed by the Parents Teachers Association and the political leaders and it was also requested to the Headmaster not to permit the 1^st petitioner to drive

¶48

WP(C).No.7588 of 2019 7

¶49

the vehicle. Therefore in my considered view, Headmaster has taken a decision, taking into account various factual circumstances and bearing in mind the safety of the tribal students transported from

¶50

various destinations of interior forest areas to the school and back.

¶51

Moreover, the contract was secured by the 2^nd petitioner and thereupon it was the duty of the 2^nd petitioner to execute the contract in accordance

¶52

with law. Second petitioner has also no case that any of the fundamental rights guaranteed to her is violated. Merely because, her husband has license to drive a vehicle, that alone is not the sufficient qualification for the transportation of the tribal children. The authorities have a duty to ensure that

¶53

the welfare and childhood of the children are protected in its letter and spirit. Child abuse, outrage and violence shocking the conscience of the society is thriving and increasing day by day, and

¶54

it is always better to take precautionary measures to eliminate any risk forseen by the stake holders

¶55

WP(C).No.7588 of 2019 8

¶56

as such, rather than clinging on to any technicality

¶57

in the matter of exercise of power. Therefore the objections raised by the responsible citizens of the area who are also concerned with the welfare and wellbeing of the tribal children, cannot be brushed aside. I am also reminded of the well accepted and meaningful old saying “Prevention is better than cure”, which alone is done by the Headmaster. In that context Articles 39(e) and (f) and 45 and 46 of Part IV of the Constitution of India are relevant, read thus;

¶58

39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State. -The State shall in particular, direct its policy towards securing-

¶59

a)xxxxxxx b)xxxxxxx c)xxxxxxx d)xxxxxxx

¶60

e)that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength;

¶61

f)that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.

¶62

WP(C).No.7588 of 2019 9

¶63

45.Provision for early childhood care and education to children below the age of six years. - The State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years.

¶64

46. Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections. - The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.

¶65

circumstances, I do not think petitioners have made

¶66

out any case of interference exercising the power of

¶67

judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therebeing no arbitrariness or illegality .

¶68

Writ petition fails, accordingly it is

dismissed.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C).No.7588 of 2019 10

¶75

APPENDIX

¶76

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶77

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE THE PETITIONER FO 2017-18.	AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY R THE ACADEMIC YEAR
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED	POLICE CLEARANCE 13.09.2018.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE 01.11.2018.	COMMUNICATION DATED
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NO.573/15.	JUDGMENT IN STC
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NO.286/2006.	JUDGMENT IN CC
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE THE 1ST PETITIONE	INFORMATION SOUGHT BY R.
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE THE 1ST RESPONDEN	INFORMATION ISSUED BY T DATED 21.11.2018.

¶78

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

Y.a.Praveen v. Headmaster

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.a.Praveen v. Headmaster

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Babu Vs a.R.Ajayakumar

State of Kerala Vs T.R.Radhakrishnan

The Meenachil Rubber Marketing & Processing Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs Marangattupilly Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. .NO.3556

Mary Reena Jacob, Vs State Bank of India

Vimaladithyan, Vs the Chairman

Sugathan Gopalan, Vs the Union of India