Y.A.PRAVEEN Vs. HEADMASTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 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 2nd petitioner was the successful bidder for the previous academic years as well as the current academic year. At the same time, the 1st respondent is not permitting the 1st petitioner to drive the vehicle, hence the petitioners find it difficult to hire a driver in order to fulfill the obligations based on the 'Gothrasaradhi Scheme'. It is also pointed out that, the 2nd respondent on the basis of an anonymous complaint orally informed the 1st petitioner that, he will not be allowed to drive the vehicle. It is also projected that, 1st 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 2nd respondent is not permitting the 1st petitioner to drive his vehicle. It is thus seeking the following directions this writ petition is filed:-

(2.) In accordance with the directions issued by this Court, the 1st respondent has submitted a report before this Court, wherein it is stated that complaints were received against the 1st petitioner and he was warned however, inspite of the warning he was indulging himself in other criminal activities and the transportation of the children by the 1st petitioner cannot be permitted. It is also pointed out that, the 1st petitioner while driving the vehicle is in the habit of using mobile phone. So also other illegalities are pointed out in the report submitted by the Headmaster. It is also stated thereunder that, 1st petitioner was involved in many criminal cases and he was an accused in a rape case, true ended in acquittal. However, 1st 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.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record. The paramount contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the 1st respondent Headmaster or the Parents Teachers Association has no authority to prohibit the 1st petitioner from driving the vehicle, and the stand adopted by the 1st respondent that the 1st petitioner will not be permitted to drive the vehicle, cannot be sustained under law being arbitrary and illegal. That apart it 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 stating that, since the cases against the 1st petitioner is over, the 1st petitioner can be permitted to drive the vehicle. On the other hand learned Government Pleader submitted that, since the duty entrusted to the 2nd 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 is not safe to permit the 1st petitioner to drive the vehicle, consequent to the antecedents that are observed by the respondents.