Agreement With School Mandatory For School-Bus Transport Permit; Arrangement With Guardians Insufficient: Allahabad High Court
Observing that the safety of school children is paramount, the Allahabad High Court has held that agreement of private bus owners with the school is necessary for obtaining permit to transport children to and from school under Rule 222-B of U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1998. It held that agreement with guardians is not sufficient for grant of such permit.
While dealing with a petition seeking permit for carrying school children, the bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held,
“this Court is of the view that the safety of school children ought to be of paramount significance, which should be the driving force for not only the guardians or the school management but also for the statutory authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made therein for plying the school buses. According to this Court, the conditions as mentioned in the Rules are mandatory and ought to be strictly followed for the safety and welfare of the school going children.”
Referring to Rule 222-B of U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1998 which lays down criteria and method of grant of permit for plying school buses, the Court held that the responsibility of the school children lies on the school, and the same cannot be bestowed upon individual guardians.
“In any case, the safety of the school going children cannot be tweaked by expanding the zone of consideration for such school buses, who do not have any agreement with the school-authorities as mandated under Rule 222 (2) of the Rules, 1998.”
Petitioner pleaded that it entered into contract with Avadh Sugar and Energy Ltd. to ferry the children of its employees to the ONGC Community School. It was pleaded that the petitioner ought to have been granted permit under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rules 222-A, 222-B and 222-L of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1998.
It was pleaded that the owner of school vans who had agreements with the guardians of the children were permitted to get carriage permit for transporting school children. Though it was agreed upon that there was no such provision for private bus owners was made, petitioner argued that in absence of provision the Court could fill the gap to the benefit of private bus owners.
The Court observed that under Rule 222-B(2), the private bus owner ought to have an agreement with the school before applying for such permit for ferrying school children. It also noted that Rule 222-B(2) had to be read with Rule 222-B(4) which provided conditions to be followed by the school while entering into an agreement with the private bus owner.
Finding that no provision regarding agreement between private bus owners and guardians existed, the Court held
“there appears to be a rationale nexus as to why agreement with guardians have not been allowed under the Rules, inasmuch as, it is the school-authorities, who is and are made responsible for the safety of school children as per the Rules. The individual guardian or their employers cannot be bestowed with such collective responsibility of these school children.”
The Court held that conditions for plying school buses under Rule 222-B of U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1998 are mandatory and cannot be tweaked at the behest of guardians of school children.
Holding that once the petitioner was in violation of conditions under Rule 222-B, the submissions of the petitioner ought to be rejected. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case title: Sameer Agarwal Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Transport Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 244
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 244