MASTER SANDEEP Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition has been filed seeking for the relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus to direct the Respondents particularly the third Respondent to issue a Bus Pass to the Petitioner without delay. Though the relief to quash the impugned action of the Respondent is also prayed for in general terms, in the absence of any challenge to any orders or proceedings passed by any of the authorities, there is no scope for granting any relief to quash.

(2.) The Petitioner is said to be a school going kid studying in Army School, Yol Cantonment, and the school is stated to be at a distance of 2 Kms. from the residence of the Petitioner. The father of the Petitioner, admittedly retired as Nb/Sub. from Army Medical Corps after rendering 26 years of meritorious service on 30th April, 1988 and it is claimed that for all purposes the father of the Petitioner is an ex-serviceman. The further claim of the Petitioner is that Army Buses are being plied under the Control of Respondent No. 3 for school going kids and those buses carry the kids to the Army school and back to their homes. The Petitioner was earlier said to have been taken to the Army school by these buses but now the persons plying the buses have completely refused to carry the Petitioner on the view that the wards of ex-servicemen cannot be allowed to travel in the said buses. After issuing legal notice dated 29.7.1998 and in the absence of positive response or reply from the Respondents the above writ petition came to be filed and the Petitioner in the petition filed before this Court also has given certain instances of persons said to be similarly situated who have been extended, according to the Petitioner, such concessional facility.

(3.) On notice being ordered, the Respondents have filed a reply contending that in view of Army Instruction No. 15/87 the facility of service transport for the school-going children of officers, JCOs, OR and civilians of certain specified categories alone are available and permissible and the Petitioner does not fall in any of those illustrated categories to claim such benefit. In other respects, they denied the receipt application said to have been made earlier on 27.7.1998 and they have annexed a copy of the Army Instruction in respect of their claim. While explaining the cases of persons illustrated by the Petitioner to whom the facility was said to have been extended, it has been stated as follows,: