Educational institutions charging fees for student transport qualify as motor transport undertakings under the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, regardless of profit motive.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. Since these Writ Petitions involve a common question of law, those are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. In the lead case i.e. in W.P.(C) No.24661 of 2025, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the communications dated 31.07.2025 and 21.08.2025 and to declare that the petitioner school is not a motor transport undertaking under the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, and is not liable to compulsory registration thereunder.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner is a private unaided CBSE-affiliated school run by DAV College Managing Committee, New Delhi, situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, and imparting education from Nursery to Class XII to more than 2500 students.

(ii) For facilitating transportation of interested students and staff, the petitioner runs a school transport facility through buses as an ancillary service to education, and states it has around 11 vehicles operating after obtaining permission from the Police Commissionerate (Bhubaneswar–Cuttack) and the Commerce and Transport Department.

(iii) The State has issued a “Policy on Transport of School Children, 2016” (Resolution No. 6395 dated 31.08.2016), stated to have been framed pursuant to directions of the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India , W.P.(C) No. 13029/1985, to regulate school children transportation within Odisha.

(iv) On 31.07.2025, Opposite Party No. 3 issued Communication Letter No. 5098/JLC, Bhubaneswar Range, directing the petitioner to apply for registration as a “Motor Transport Undertaking” in Form-I under the Odisha Motor Transport Workers Rules, 1966 through the PAReSHRAM portal, alleging applicability of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, and warning of action under Section 32 for non-compliance.

(v) The petitioner replied on 11.08.2025 disputing applicability of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, relying on policy and case law, and requesting withdrawal/waiver of the direction to register.

(vi) On 21.08.2025, Opposite Party No. 3 issued a further Communication Letter No. 5798/JLC reiterating the direction to register through PAReSHRAM by 02.09.2025 and stating prosecution would be initiated under Section 32 if the petitioner failed to comply.

(vii) The writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the communications dated 31.07.2025 and 21.08.2025 on the plea that the petitioner is not a “Motor Transport Undertaking” within Section 2(g) of the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961.

(viii) In the counter affidavit, the deponent (Divisional Labour Commissioner, Bhubaneswar), states he is duly authorised by Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 3, asserts the petitioner is covered by the Act, and relies on judicial precedents and the petitioner’s charging of transport fees to support registration and regulatory enforcement.

(ix) The opposite parties additionally state that several educational institutions in Bhubaneswar have already obtained registration under the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, and claim the petitioner school has itself submitted an application in Form-I through the PAReSHRAM portal while also filing this writ petition.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4. L