SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- M. Jagannadha Rao and A.P. Misra, JJ.

Writ Petition (C) No. 346 of 1998. D/d. 17.9.1999.

Virendra Singh Negi - Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. and others - Respondents

Constitution of India, Articles 32 and 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Writ petition seeking reliefs relating to safety of passengers of the vehicles plying in the hilly areas - Held that, this case is to be decided and monitored by the High Court at Allahabad in view of the nature of the directions which are sought for and which may be given from time to time - Writ petition remitted to the High Court with the direction to register it as one under Article 226 and dispose of it in accordance with law.

[Para 4]

ORDER

M. Jagannadha Rao, J. - This writ petition has been entertained under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The reliefs sought in the writ petition are as follows:

(a) direct the respondents to ensure strict compliance with statutory rules and regulations for issuing hill driving licences and hill fitness certificates and to require the drivers and conductors to undergo special training;

(b) to direct the respondents to fix luminous road signs and fencing on bends/curves on all hilly roads;

(c) to direct the respondents to ensure that vehicles plying on the hilly area are fully fit for hilly road conditions to minimise road accidents and all vehicles should undergo strict thorough checking;

(d) to direct the respondents to ensure that only such drivers of the vehicles should be allowed to ply their vehicles in hilly areas provided they possess hill driving licence and they are perfectly declared physically fit for driving in hilly areas;

(e) to direct Respondent 4 U.P. State Road Transport Corporation to provide and ply more of their own buses in the hilly area to minimise the accidents;

(f) to direct that no overcrowding takes place in the buses or other vehicles; and/or

(g) pass such other order or orders that may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Counter-affidavits have been filed in this case. On 26-2-1999 this Court passed further orders as follows:

"All the parties including the State and the Transport Department to come forward with more facts and adequate proposals.

List the petition after four weeks."

3. Pursuant to the said directions, a supplemental statement dated 8-8-1999 has been filed by the Regional Transport Officer, Dehradun, U.P. After perusing the points raised in the writ petition, counter-affidavits and the supplemental statement, we are of the view that this case is to be decided and monitored by the High Court at Allahabad in view of the nature of the directions which are sought for and which may be given from time to time.

4. We, therefore, remit this writ petition to the High Court at Allahabad for disposal. This writ petition will be registered as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and will be disposed of in accordance with law. The Registry of the Supreme Court will transmit the original writ petition filed in this Court to the High Court along with the counters and other affidavits filed in this Court, retaining the copies of the writ petition etc. in this Court.

5. We request the High Court to deal with the matter in accordance with law. The matter will be listed on 15-11-1999 in the High Court. The parties to appear before the High Court on 15-11-1999.

.