Statutory conductor-licensing requirements require continued enforcement, but do not warrant further general judicial directions.

The petitioner, a journalist, filed a Public Interest Litigation alleging that passenger buses/stage carriages in Chhattisgarh were being operated without duly licensed conductors.

He relied on information suggesting that the number of licensed conductors was substantially lower than the number of registered passenger buses and sought directions requiring the authorities to ensure the presence and functioning of a licensed conductor in every passenger bus, including through checks by flying squads and check-posts.

The State submitted that, as of 24 January 2025, there were 14,488 registered passenger buses and 7,236 school buses, against 1,012 licensed conductors.

The State reported action against 566 vehicles under Sections 29/177, with penalties totalling ₹4,08,000, in addition to other enforcement measures.

The petitioner maintained that the number of licensed conductors was inadequate and that the authorities had not ensured compliance.

Whether the respondent transport authorities were failing to enforce the statutory requirement that stage carriages/passenger buses operate with duly licensed conductors.

Whether the numerical disparity between registered buses and licensed conductors established a violation requiring general mandatory directions from the Court.

Whether further directions should be issued to require continuous inspection and enforcement against passenger buses operating without licensed conductors.

The Court applied Section 38 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, concerning the licensing of conductors of passenger vehicles, together with Rules 25, 26 and 27 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, which govern the licensing/batch system for conductors.

It also considered Sections 29/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which action may be taken against vehicles operated without a conductor licence.

The applicable statutory requirement must be enforced with reference to the relevant class of vehicle, its actual operation as a stage carriage/passenger vehicle, applicable permit conditions, and the statutory provisions governing the engagement and licensing of conductors; an aggregate comparison of buses and licensed conductors is, by itself, insufficient to establish a violation in every vehicle.

The Court found that the State did not dispute the statutory requirement for licensed conductors and had placed on record directions issued to Regional Transport Officers, District Transport Officers, flying squads and check-posts to issue licences and take action against non-compliant buses.

The enforcement data, including action against 566 vehicles under Sections 29/177, demonstrated that the authorities were not wholly inactive.

Although the petitioner’s concern regarding passenger safety had substance because violations had been detected, the Court held that the disparity between 1,012 licensed conductors and the aggregate number of registered buses did not conclusively prove that every relevant bus was being operated unlawfully.

Compliance had to be assessed vehicle-by-vehicle, considering the vehicle category, actual operation, permit conditions and applicable statutory requirements.

Consequently, no general or roving judicial direction was necessary, though the authorities were expected to continue strict and effective enforcement.

It directed, by way of observation, that the respondent authorities remain vigilant and ensure effective and continuous enforcement of the provisions concerning licensed conductors in stage carriages/passenger buses, with action to be taken against specific violations in accordance with law.

The Court expressly declined to decide the correctness of the competing figures regarding the total number of registered buses and licensed conductors, as that determination was unnecessary for disposal of the petition.

No order was made as to costs.