A contract carriage permit for transporting school children requires a formal agreement with the school authority to ensure mandatory safety compliance and institutional accountability; agreements with private parties such as employers or guardians do not satisfy the statutory requirements prescribed under the regulatory framework.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Alok Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratnesh Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the State- respondents. Rejoinder affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. Exchange of the pleading between the parties are complete. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken for final disposal.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent-authorities in not granting him a contract carriage permit under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1988") for carrying school children of Factory's Employees of Avadh Sugar and Energy Ltd. to the ONGC Community School, Village Paintala, District- Sitapur.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has a bus with an All U.P. Contract Carriage Permit and he has entered an agreement with the Factory, namely, Avadh Sugar and Energy Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Factory") by virtue of which the petitioner has got permission to carry the children of the Factory's Employees to the ONGC Community School.

4. In support of his submission, Sri Alok Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Section 2 (7) and Section 74 of the Act, 1988 . He further relied on Rule 222-A, 222-B and 222-L of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1998") to submit that the Regional Transport Authority is required to grant a contract carriage permit to him for carrying school children as provided in Section 74 of the Act, 1988 read with Rules 222-B of the Rules, 1998.

5. Sri Saxena has further articulated that sub rule -1 of Rule 222-B of the Rules, 1998 allows for educational institutions to run buses and permits to be issued by the competent authority to such buses. He submits that sub-rule-2 allows for a owner of a private bus, who has written agreement with school authorities to apply for such permit. He further relied on sub rule-3 of Rule 222-B of the Rules, 1998 to indicate that owner of the school vans, who are having an agreement with guardian or a group of guardians for transporting school children are also permitted to get the carriage permit for plying school children.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that with regard to an owner of a private bus the Rules are silent on the aspect as to whether such owner may get a permit or not, if he has an agreement with the guardians for transporting school children. According to the learned counsel, this gap would not act as a bar for issuing permit to the private buses, who are having agreement with the guardians and/or their employers, which is the present case.

7. Per contra, Sri Ratnesh Singh Tomar, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that Chapter IX-A of the Rules, 1998 was added in the Rules specifically in the year, 2018 and came into effect from 17^th of December of 2018 with respect to special provisions for school vehicles. The insertion of the entire Chapter IX-A also contains Rules 222-B and 222-L to ensure the safety and security of the children, who are going to school. He further submits that the petitioner has not challenged the vires of the said Rules and accordingly, the Rules as it is today are requ