R.Sengodan v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH & M.P.No.1 of 2014 1.R.Sengodan 2.A.S.Angammal 3.K.Malathi 4.S.K.Krishnamoorthy
...Petitioners
Vs.
1.The District Collector, 2.The Regional Transport Officer, O/o.Regional Transport Office, Thiruchengode, 3.The Deputy Director of Town Planning, Town and Country Planning Authority, No.6. Sannadhi Street, Subramani Nagar, Salem - 5.
4.K.S.Rengasamy, Correspondent, Avvai K.S.R. High School, 6th street C.H.B. Colony, Thiruchengode,
(R4 deleted vide order dated 24.11.2022 made in W.P.No.15093 of 2014 by this Court)
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 3 from permitting the 4th respondent from plying the school buses to his schools from the vacant land comprised in Survey No.123/1A through the private street and 8th Street, C.H.B. Colony, Thiruchengode, Namakkal District and initiate action against the 4th respondent for using 30 feet breadth road for plying school buses. For Petitioners : Mr.Ilan Chezhiyan For M/s. G.Ethirajulu For Respondents : Mr.B.Vijay, [for R1 to R3] Additional Government Pleader.
Mr.K.S.Jeyaganeshan [for R4]
O R D E R
The petitioners claim to be residing in C.H.B. Colony, Thiruchengode, Namakal District. Their grievance is as against the action of the 4th respondent, who is the Correspondent in the Avvai K.S.R. High School, Thiruchengode, who, plys, according to the petitioner, 14 school buses transporting the students of the school to and from their homes to the school. They are also aggrieved by the fact that the school buses are parked in a vacant land neighbouring their residence.
2. The petitioner had, admittedly, made a written representation dated 13.05.2014, to which they state that there was no response from the respondents. According to them, plying of school buses causes nuisance to the residents of the area and various allegations have been made in regard to the functioning of the school itself.
3. They thus seek a mandamus forbearing respondents 1 to 3 from permitting 4th respondent from plying school buses to the school from vacant land in S.No.123/1A through private street and 8th street of C.H.B. Colony, Thiruchengode, Namakkal District and further initiate action against the 4th respondent for using 30 feet road for plying buses.
4. Counters have been filed by the Deputy Director of Town Planning and the Correspondent of the School, 3rd and 4th respondent respectively.
5. As far as the facts are concerned, both the respondents deny that the roads through which the buses ply are private roads. They confirm that the entirety of the route comprises public roads only. That apart, they would state that the area in which the buses are parked comprises of vacant land that has been taken on lease from a 3rd party. According to them, the number of buses is only 9 and not 14 as alleged. They also deny that there is any pollution or any hardship or nuisance caused to the residents of the area.
6. The counter filed by the official respondent supports the stand adopted by the 4th respondent. The deponent refers, in detail to the enquiry that was conducted on 28.05.2014, in which 4th respondent along with 9 other residents of street No.8 and C.H.B. Colony, participated. Their opinion is to the effect that the petitioners are out to settle their personal scores qua 4th respondent, particularly as none of the residents, who participated in the enquiry supported the allegation put forth by these petitioners.
7. That apart, 3rd respondent confirms at paragraph No.6 that the vacant land utilized by 4th respondent for parking of the buses has been taken on lease and that the roads on which the buses ply to and from the parking slot and the school premises, constitute public roads. They also confirm that there is no nuisance caused by plying of the school buses or any danger or threat to the life of the residents or students.
8. At paragraph No.7 of the counter filed by the 3rd respondent, they refer to reply dated 18.07.2014 sent by the 2nd respondent herein, denying and repudiating the allegation made by the petitioners.
9. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioners, they reiterate the contents of the Writ Petition, in effect enhancing the allegations made, to say that 50 buses are now being run by the school.
11. Upon considering the rival contentions and the pleadings filed, this Court finds no reason to intervene or to consider grant of mandamus as sought. The averments in counter, particularly by the 3rd respondent, make it clear to me that the parking and plying of the school buses is in order and not in contravention of any rules or regulations.
12. This order is restricted to the averments in the present pleadings before me now. The petitioners are always at liberty to raise, and the respondents are bound to enquire into allegations, if and when made of violations if any, committed by the school going forward.
13. Accordingly, this Writ petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.12.2022 mpl Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non speaking Order
DR.ANITA SUMANTH,J.
mpl To 1.The District Collector, 2.The Regional Transport Officer, O/o.Regional Transport Office, Thiruchengode, 3.The Deputy Director of Town Planning, Town and Country Planning Authority, No.6. Sannadhi Street, Subramani Nagar, Salem - 5.
& M.P.No.1 of 2014 16.12.2022