AGARTALA, June 15 (TIWN): The division bench of High Court of Tripura has issued notice to the state government asking it to explain if it is true that school buses have been plying on the streets violating the Supreme Court’s guidelines.The bench comprising Chief Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Subhasish Talapatra has also asked the Secretary, Transport department to explain how this has been permitted if there is a violation of the apex courts’ guideline.

The government will have to reply on the notice by July 24 next.

Atash Chakraborty, a government employee, in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) had said almost all private schools and collages including National Institute of Technology (NIT), Agartala have been plying vehicles on the streets defying the guideline of the Supreme Court as well as provision of Motor Vehicle Act.

In the PIL, Mr. Chakraborty, who is also a guardian, has placed photographs showing schools buses have been flouting the apex court’s guideline while carrying students. As for example, some vehicles don’t have insurance while some school buses don’t have fitness certificate. Besides, some drivers don’t’ have renewed driving licenses. And this has been happening even after he took up the matter with the Transport department for taking remedial measures.     

In the plea, the petitioner said there is a need to check the matter or otherwise, any time, any movement, any untoward incident situation might arise to the students travelling on school and college buses. “

After hearing the petition, the division bench has issued a notice to the government asking it to inform the court on the subject/ allegations raised by the petitioner by July 24 next. The bench also asked the Secretary, Transport department to explain how this has been permitted if the violation of apex court’s is found to be true.

Superintendent of Police (Traffic) and Joint Transport Commissioner (JTC) were also serviced the same notice triggering turbulent situation in the transport department.

Advocate Chandra Sekhar Sinha moved the case in favour of the petitioner.