MANIMEGALAI SOCIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY (LEGAL SECTION), A.V. RAMAN Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, DR. AMBEDKAR TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in this petition has sought for punishing the Respondents for disobedience of the order dated 19.4.1996 made by this Court in W.P. No. 449 of 1996. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:

(2.) The above -mentioned Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner seeking Writ of Mandamus for -bearing the Respondents from preventing the school -going children having season tickets or free pass holders in travelling in any of the bus services run by the Respondent -corporations in the affidavit filed in support of the Contempt Application, the Petitioner states that inspite of the order passed in this petition and inspite of his giving notice to the Respondents, they have not given any direction to their sub -ordinates to obey the order of this Court, which amounts to gross disobedience of the order. Along with the affidavit of the Petitioner, the affidavit of one R.M. Mohan Kumar and parents of two students are also filed. In the said affidavits, it is stated that on 26.11.1996 at about 4.30 PM a student by name Ms. Pushpa Rani was not permitted to travel in the bus with a free pass issued by the first Respondent and that R.M. Mohan Kumar, Secretary of the Petitioner -association was present in the bus at that time. In the affidavit of one Kothandan, it is stated that his son K. Rupakaran had informed him that he was asked to get down from a bus No. 1B(PP) running from Raja Kadai to High Court when he was travelling in the said bus and that was witnessed by Shri. R.M. Mohankumar. In the affidavit of one Kuppusamy, it is stated that his daughter K. Pushparani is holding free pass issued by the first Respondent for going to and coming back from the school. She told that when she was travelling in a bus route No. PP 56P, she was asked to get down and that at that time R.M. Mohankumar, Secretary of the Petitioner -association had witnessed the incident.

(3.) The Respondents have filed a common counter affidavit. Thiru. M. Koteeswaran, Managing Director has filed the counter affidavit as the Managing Director of both Respondents -Corporations. In the affidavit, he has stated that he has utmost respect to this Court and the judiciary and at the outset he tendered unconditional apology and placed the following facts to assist this Court in deciding this Contempt Application. It is submitted that Point to Point Services (PP) or Limited Stop Services (LSS) are operated as faster services; depending on the general demand. These PP and LSS Services skip few bus stops and reach the destination early unlike the ordinary services, which halt at every bus stop. For the better services provided, the Corporations charge 1.25 times more than the ordinary fare for P.P. Services and 20 paise over and above the ordinary fare for L.S.S. Services. Introductions of P.P. and L.S.S. or Express Buses did not mean that the ordinary fare buses were done away with. It is, further submitted that by and large Express Bus timings do not coincide with the school timings. In this view, when free travel for the school -going children were announced by the Government, passes were issued with restriction. Condition 1 and 3 found on the reverse of the free passes season tickets for the academic year 1995 -96 are as follows: