Dismissed

Tejaa Shakthi Institute of v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC2 Apr 2024WP/28878/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a condition in a Government Order that mandated a minimum of ten years of experience for drivers of school/college buses. The Court held that the condition, implemented following Supreme Court directions in M.C. Mehta, was a valid policy decision for student safety and not irrational.

What the court decided

AI extract

Tejaa Shakthi Institute of Vs the Government of Tamil… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP No.28878 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

¶8

WP No.28878 of 2010

¶9

Tejaa Shakthi Institute of Technology for Women, rep. By its Chairman, NH-47, Avinashi Road, near Chennai Andavar Koil, Karumathampatti, Coimbatore 641 659 : Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Home (transport) Department, Chennai 600009

¶12

2.The Transport Commissioner & Road Safety Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai 5

¶13

3.The Commissioner of Technical Education, Chennai 25

¶14

4.The Regional Transport Officer (North) 640/616 KK Block, Avinashi road, Khadi Board, Kumaran Nagar, Thiruppur 641 063 : Respondents

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

WP No.28878 of 2010

¶18

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring that Condition No.9 to Letter No. 31083/H3/2010 dated 03.08.2010 of the Commissioner of Technical Education, Chennai is illegal,, unconstitutional and unenforceable insofar as it relates to the petitioner herein

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.Kandhan Duraisami For Respondents : Mr.A.Anandan, Government Advocate

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶22

We have heard Mr.Kandhan Duraisami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Anandan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition that driver of the school/college bus must have a minimum of ten years of experience of driving heavy vehicles and must not have any previous record of any traffic offence is impossible of performance. It is very difficult to get driver for a school bus having a minimum of ten years of experience of driving heavy vehicles, and a condition impossible of performance cannot be sustained. Learned counsel further submits that the said condition is arbitrary and does not have

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

WP No.28878 of 2010

¶27

any rational with the object in view.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Apex Court

¶29

in the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India [2008 (5) SCC

¶30

511], has observed that the Court cannot issue directions to legislate in a particular manner.

¶31

It appears that the impugned condition was incorporated pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India [1997 (8) SCC 770] wherein the Apex Court has observed that no bus belonging to or hired by an educational institution shall be driven by a driver who has less than ten years of experience and has been challaned more than twice for minor traffic offence.

¶32

A Division Bench of this Court in WP No.47114 of 2002

¶33

(M.Chandrasekar vs. Union of India) under judgment and order dated 09.10.2007, directed the Government to follow the directions of the Apex Court in M.C.Mehta . It appears that pursuant thereto, the impugned Government Order is passed by the Department of Technical Education.

¶34

Page 3 of 6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

WP No.28878 of 2010

¶37

In the present case, as per the directions of the Apex Court

¶38

and as directed by this Court, a policy decision has been taken by the State in the interest of students. We do not find any irrationality in the same.

¶39