IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Original Jurisdiction) 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ 
Mr. Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed 
 
HUMAN RIGHTS CASE No.20107-G/2013 
(Action on News clipping in the daily “Dawn” dated 26.05.2013 
 regarding incident of burning of school van in Gujrat) 
 
 
  
 
  
On Court’s Notice 
 
:  
For the Federation 
: Mr. Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai, DAG 
 
For M/o Petroleum  
 
: 
 
Mr. Irshad Ali Khokhar, DG 
 
 Mr. Mansoor Ahmad Raja, Chief Engineer (HDIP) 
 
For Department of 
Explosives  
 
: 
 
Mr. Muhammad Hussain Channa, 
 Chief Inspector of Explosive 
 
For OGRA 
 
 
 
: 
 
Mr. Afnan Karim Kundi, ASC 
Mr. Saeed Ahmed Khan, Chairman 
Mr. Farrukh Nadeem, ED (Enforcement) 
Mr. Rizwan ul Haq, ED (Law) 
 
For Govt. of Punjab 
: Mr. Jawwad Hassan, Addl.A.G. 
Mr. Salahuddin Khan, Secretary RTA 
Mr. Asif Bilal Lodhi, DCO Gujrat 
 
  
For the State 
: Mr. Asjad Javaid Ghurral, Addl. P.G. 
Mr. Dar Ali Khattak, DPO, Gujrat 
Mr. Ijaz, SHO, PS Kunjah 
 
  
For Motor Vehicle 
Examiner 
: Mr. Aftab Ahmed Bajwar, ASC 
 
  
Dates of Hearing 
: 13-06-2013 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ. :- This case was initiated 
by the Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, 1973 on the 
basis of a news item that appeared in the daily “Dawn” on 26.05.2013 
titled “All are responsible: Van fire tragedy”. The item referred to the 
HRC No.20107-G/2013 
2
death of sixteen schoolchildren and one teacher in Gujrat on 
25.05.2013 when the vehicle they were travelling in exploded. The 
news item, reproduced hereinbelow, clearly depicts the apathy and 
desensitisation to bloodshed that has become the norm in our society. 
“REACTING to the tragic van fire near Gujrat town on 
Saturday, a local official said lives could have been saved if 
the driver of the vehicle had shown some courage. That 
statement provides the starting point of a probe to identify 
all those responsible for the heartbreaking, horrible 
tragedy. The killing of at least 15 young school-bound 
children and a teacher in the fire was no accident. This was 
nothing short of murder or at least manslaughter. 
The guilty include money-minded transporters who justify 
the low safety standards they maintain by boastfully 
stressing on the affordability factor. Never is their greed 
more obscenely manifested than in the hot summer 
months. The routine sight of children crammed in rundown 
vehicles in the suffocating heat is the worst advertisement 
for our education system. It is a horrifying throwback to 
those dark times that we would like to pretend we have 
left far behind. Sadly, the same era of ignorance and 
negligence continues, frequently throwing up tragedies of 
this 
sort. 
Those 
responsible 
also 
include 
school 
administrations and the officials who run the affairs of 
government. 
Finally, 
cruel 
though 
it 
may 
sound 
considering the grief of those whose children have 
perished, parents too must bear part of the blame for not 
demanding a better deal for their offspring, for being the 
meek of the earth who accept their fate unquestioningly. 
In a saner country, the Gujrat fire would be the only news 
worth pondering over for days and weeks if not months. In 
Pakistan, it is likely to be quickly overtaken by other, 
‘more pressing’ events, as has happened in the aftermath 
of similar incidents in the past. Such incidents have 
included the killing of children in gas cylinder blasts, 
deaths of school-bound students at a railway crossing at 
HRC No.20107-G/2013 
3
one place and a bus overturning during a school excursion 
at another. After a period of initial mourning, these 
tragedies are forgotten in the interest of the continuation 
of the system. A similar pattern appears to be emerging 
now and the design could succeed once again unless a 
genuine effort is made to devise and enforce safety 
measures in transport used by our schoolchildren — and 
urgently. The blaming of one individual — the driver of the 
van — and the convenient, standard identification of short-
circuiting as the cause of the fire are dire signs of the 
guilty seeking to take the old escape route. They are no 
less than murderers. If they are allowed to flee now, they 
will return to kill again.” 
 
2. 
 
The Court took notice of the case on 29.05.2013. On the 
same date, the Court passed an Order which called upon the Secretary 
of the Ministry of Petroleum, the Chief Secretary of the Government of 
Punjab, the Secretary of the Transport Department of Punjab, the 
Inspector-General (IG) of the Punjab Police and the administration of 
the Jinnah School, Mangowal (the school concerned) to submit reports. 
In further hearings, the Chairman of the Oil and Gas Regulatory 
Authority (OGRA) was directed to explain whether any mechanism is 
followed to ensure the safety of CNG cylinders used in vehicles. The 
Secretary Transport, Punjab was directed to submit reports on whether 
any action was taken against the concerned Motor Vehicle Examiner 
(MVE) and the officials who were responsible for issuing certificates to 
the school van and whether action was taken to ensure the protection 
of the lives of people who travel in such vehicles. 
 
 
 
3. 
 
The Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum submitted an 
Inspection Report that was particularly helpful in elucidating the facts 
of the incident. The Inspection Report stated, inter alia, the following: 
HRC No.20107-G/2013 
4
i. 
According to the children, the vehicle went out of 
order frequently in the days prior to the incident. 
ii. 
The driver, Muhammad Irfan, was smoking at the 
time of the incident. 
iii. 
The petrol tank of the vehicle was not working. The 
petrol was inside the passenger compartment in a 
can from where it supplied fuel to the engine through 
a plastic pipe. Another can filled with petrol was also 
inside the vehicle. Both these cans were placed 
adjacent to the engine behind the front seat of the 
van. 
iv. 
One minute before the incident, at least four children 
complained to the driver that they smelled the odour 
of petrol in the vehicle. The driver did not pay any 
heed to the complaints. 
v. 
The fire started from the front of the vehicle where 
the petrol cans were situated and proceed to engulf 
the entire vehicle. 
vi. 
The incident was exacerbated by the fact that the 
sliding doors of the vehicle could not be opened from 
the inside; and the back door of the vehicle was out 
of order. It was through the gallantry and heroism of 
the teacher that five children survived the incident. 
The teacher sacrificed her own life; pushing children 
out the window of the van whereas she perished in 
flames.  
vii. 
The driver ran from the site of the incident without 
even trying to open the door of the van. 
viii. 
None of the CNG cylinders exploded in the incident. 
ix. 
Drivers in the district of Gujrat have been observed 
to use unauthorised plastic cans for storage of petrol 
to save money that would be spent on replacing 
petrol tanks. 
x. 
The main cause of the incident was the spillage of 
petrol on the floor of the vehicle, which most 
probably ignited a fire due to contact with the hot 
engine surfaces. Short circuiting of wiring and the 
HRC No.20107-G/2013 
5
fact that the driver was smoking while sitting near 
petrol cans cannot be ruled out as causes. 
xi. 
The fitness certificate of the vehicle was expired. 
xii. 
OGRA is mandated to conduct a full-fledged inquiry 
into the incident and fix responsibility to prevent 
such incidents from occurring. 
 
4. 
 
The administration of the Jinnah School, Magowal averred 
in its report dated 01.06.2013 that it owns two vehicles for the 
purposes of transportation of schoolchildren and employees; one of 
which was involved in the tragic incident. Apparently, the CNG 
cylinders that the said vehicle was outfitted with were purchased and 
installed from a private distributor and were not affirmed by any 
competent authority. The vehicle ran on a dual-fuel basis, i.e. it could 
run on either petrol or CNG. It was sated that the incident occurred 
when the driver switched the fuel setting from CNG to petrol. On the 
direction of the Chief Secretary, Punjab, the Punjab Forensic Science 
Agency (the “Agency”) submitted a report which stated, inter alia, that 
the probable cause of the fire was the spark produced at the CNG kit 
during conversion of CNG to petrol. The Report of the Chief Secretary, 
Punjab dated 03.06.2013 countenanced this difference of opinion as to 
whether the incident occurred when the driver switched the fuel 
setting of the vehicle from CNG to petrol or due to spillage of petrol. It 
is helpful to reproduce the following portion of the Chief Secretary’s 
Report: 
“However, the difference of opinion has no material 
bearing for the following reasons: 
a) Both the reports indicate that the van was not 
roadworthy and was also subjected to unauthorized 
modifications as mentioned above. Of the five 
available doors, three had problems; the right sliding 
HRC No.20107-G/2013 
6
door was permanently closed, the other sliding door 
could not be opened from the inside while the back 
door was out of order. Thus the chances of escaping 
the fire were almost obliterated. 
b) The 
van’s 
fitness 
certificate 
had 
expired 
on 
24.04.2013, i.e. a month prior to the accident and 
was not renewed. 
c) The said van had no valid route-permit.” 
 
5. 
 
The report of the IG, Punjab stated that FIRs were 
registered against the driver, Muhammad Irfan s/o Muhammad Younas 
as well as the owners of the vehicle and Jinnah School, Mangowal, 
namely Shafqat Hussain s/o Muhammad Hussain, Rizwan s/o Ali 
Ahmad and Muhammd Ehsan s/o Nazir Ahmad. It was further stated 
that action was taken against decanting of Liquified Petroleum Gas 
(LPG), illegal sale of petrol and unfit vehicles. The Traffic Police also 
carried out a special campaign whereby a number of challans were 
issued from 26.05.2013 – 30.05.2013 to counter those driving without 
route permits, fitness certificates, and driving licenses. It is pertinent 
to mention a letter dated 10.12.2011 from the Additional IG of the 
Punjab Traffic Police to the Secretary Transport, Punjab which is 
annexed to the Report of the IG Punjab. The said letter clearly states 
that fitting of fuel tanks in the passenger area of a vehicle is a clear 
violation of Rule 199 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1969. The said letter 
also expressly gives the direction to remove illegally-fitted LPG and 
CNG cylinders from vehicles and to cancel the fitness certificates of 
such vehicles. 
6. 
 
A report was also submitted by a committee headed by the 
Commissioner, Gujranwala, which fixed responsibility for the incident 
as under: 
HRC No.20107-G/2013 
7
i. 
Mohsin 
Riaz, 
the 
Secretary, 
District 
Regional 
Transport Authority (DRTA), failed to carry out 
inspections to ensure that vehicles without route 
permits and fitness certificates do not run. 
ii. 
Farrukh Sohail, the MVE, failed to check the fitness 
of vehicles that came within his purview. 
iii. 
The District Traffic Police failed to implement the 
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 
(MVO). 
iv. 
The District Excise and Taxation Department failed to 
record the change in ownership of the vehicle and 
the fact that the engine of the vehicle had been 
changed from diesel to petrol to CNG in violation of 
the MVO. 
v. 
The District Education Department registered The 
Jinnah School, Mangowal without proper inspections 
by the said department, which is a violation of the 
Punjab Private Educational Institutions (Promotion 
and Regulation) Ordinance, 1984. 
vi. 
The management of The Jinnah School, Mangowal 
failed to conduct any investigations as to the fitness 
and safety of the vehicle. 
vii. 
The driver did not validly procure a driving licence. 
viii. 
The parents of the children were unaware of the 
state of the vehicle; some had never even seen the 
vehicle. 
Pursuant to the aforementioned report, Mohsin Riaz, the Secretary, 
DRTA and Farrukh Sohail, the MVE were suspended from duty by the 
Secretary Transport, Punjab. Directions were also issued to the District 
Education and Excise and Taxation Departments to initiate inquires in 
light of the findings of the Commissioner, Gujranwala’s report. 
 
7. 
 
Mr. Afnan Karim Kundi, learned ASC, appeared on behalf 
of Chairman, OGRA. His primary contention was that the regulation 
HRC No.20107-G/2013 
8
and monitoring of proper and safe installation of CNG kits and the 
certification of vehicles for that purpose are in fact the domain of the 
Chief Inspector of Explosives (CIE), not OGRA. The learned ASC 
substantiated this contention by referring to the following provisions of 
the OGRA Ordinance, 2002 in his Concise Statement: 
 Section 2(1)(iii) defines CNG as “natural gas 
compressed for vehicular or other mobile use.” 
 Section 2(1)(xxxii) defines “regulated activity” as “an 
activity requiring licence.” CNG consumption by 
automobiles/vehicles is not a “regulated activity” and 
is therefore not licensed by OGRA. 
 Section 2(1)(xxxiv) defines “retail consumer for 
natural gas” as “a person who purchases or receives 
natural gas for consumption and not for delivery or 
resale other than resale for vehicular use or self 
consumption by a licensee in connection with its 
regulated activity”. 
 Section 2(1)(xxxvii) defines “sale” as “a sale of 
natural gas to retail consumers of natural gas but 
does not include sale of CNG for vehicular use or 
self-consumption by a licensee in connection with its 
regulated activity”. Importantly, sale of CNG for 
vehicular is clearly ousted from sale of natural gas. 
 Section 6(1) states that “the Authority shall be 
exclusively responsible for granting licenses for the 
carrying out of regulated activities and regulating 
such activities”. Regulation by OGRA is thus limited 
to “regulated activities”. 
 Section 23(2)(b) and (d) refer only to construction 
and operation of CNG testing facility, construction 
and operation of CNG operation of CNG storage 
facility and transportation, marketing or distribution 
of CNG as “regulated activities” with respect to CNG. 
 Sections 41 and 42 empower OGRA to make rules 
and regulations for carrying out the purposes of the 
HRC No.20107-G/2013 
9
OGRA Ordinance but they do not add to the list of 
“regulated activities”. 
 OGRA only gives licenses for CNG filling stations; it is 
the responsibility of authorities like the CIE and the 
Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan 
(HDIP) to ensure that filling stations only fill those 
vehicles whose cylinders are properly fitted and are 
validly certified. 
 
8. 
 
In asserting the responsibility of the CIE, Mr. Afnan Karim 
Kundi, learned ASC placed particular emphasis on Rule 18(1) of the 
CNG (Production and Marketing) Rules, 1992 (CNG Rules), which is 
reproduced as under (with emphasis added by the learned ASC): 
 
“18. Protection to the public.-(1) No licensee shall 
locate or construct any new works and CNG refuelling 
station in any residential area. A licensee shall locate, 
construct and operate his pipeline and all works connected 
with CNG Refuelling Station, and installation of CNG 
equipment in automobiles in accordance with the 
license granted by the Chief Inspector of Explosives 
under the Mineral Gas Safety Rules, 1960, and strictly 
comply with the provisions of the Petroleum Rules 1937 
and the Gas Cylinder Rules, 1940, so as to avoid any 
danger to the public health or safety.” 
 
9. 
 
Mr. Afnan Karim Kundi, learned ASC, averred that the 
Federal Government has now vested the CIE with elaborate licensing, 
monitoring and enforcement powers in respect of inter alia installation 
of CNG cylinders, valve and fittings under the Mineral Industrial Gases 
Safety (MIGS) Rules, 2010, which repealed the 1960 Rules, as detailed 
hereunder: 
HRC No.20107-G/2013 
10
 Examination, testing and condemning of cylinders 
[Rules 28 and 29]. 
 Recognition of testing stations for periodical testing 
and examination or cylinders [Rule 28(2) read with 
Schedule III]. 
 Licensing import of gas cylinders including CNG 
cylinders [Rule 80]. 
 Prohibition on filling or possession of cylinders and 
valves unless of type and standard approved by CIE 
[Rules 129 and 130]. 
 Approval of type of safety relief devices fitted in 
cylinders [Rule 131]. 
 Restriction on delivery or dispatch of cylinders except 
to licensees of CIE unless exempted [Rule 136]. 
 Overseeing maintenance of cylinders, valves and 
other fittings in good condition [Rule 141(1)]. 
 Prevention of leakage from cylinder/valve [Rule 
141(4)]. 
 Prohibition and special precautions against acts 
causing fire or explosion relating to cylinders [Rule 
142]. 
 Ensuring a competent and experienced person to 
oversee all operations (filling etc.) of cylinders [Rule 
143]. 
 Periodical retesting of cylinders [Rule 152]. 
 Ensuring maintenance of record by owners of 
cylinders [Rule 153]. 
 Prohibition on filling any cylinder with CNG unless 
same along with valve and other fittings are of type 
and 
standard 
approved 
by 
CIE, have 
passed 
applicable testing and are otherwise compliant with 
Rule 130 through Rule 134 [Rule 157]. 
 Power to grant or to refuse to grant, renew, amend 
or transfer licenses [Rules 163 and 170]. 
 Power to suspend or cancel license for violation of 
anything objectionable, including without hearing the 
licensee in the public interest or in the case of 
imminent danger to the public [Rule 171].  
HRC No.20107-G/2013 
11
 
10. 
 
Mr. Afnan Karim Kundi, learned ASC, also contended that 
MVEs are mandated by the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969 (MVR) to 
physically examine Public Service Vehicles (PSV), including their fuel 
tanks, such as the one in question. The learned ASC relied on the 
definition of “gas cylinder” in Rule 2(xl) of the MIGS Rules, 2010 in 
asserting that a “gas cylinder” includes a “(CNG) cylinder fitted to a 
motor vehicle as its fuel tank”. (emphasis added by the learned 
ASC). 
 
11. 
 
The CIE submitted a reply controverting the above 
contentions raised on behalf of Chairman, OGRA. The CIE averred that 
OGRA was attempting to shift its responsibilities on the shoulders of 
the Department of Explosives. In this regard, he referred to a letter 
dated 02.03.2011 from OGRA to the Secretary, Cabinet Division. In 
the said letter, OGRA protested the promulgation of the MIGS Rules, 
2010 and the Explosives Rules, 2010. In the letter, OGRA stated that 
the said Rules were in conflict with the provisions of the OGRA 
Ordinance. In particular, the letter stated,  
“8. 
...OGRA Ordinance is a special law and therefore its 
provisions must prevail upon the provisions of all other 
general laws including but not limited to the Explosives 
Act, 1884, Petroleum Act, 1934 and the rules made there 
under. 
10. 
In view of the above it is evident that the newly 
promulgated rules under the Explosives Act, 1884 and 
Petroleum Act, 1934 are inconsistent with the provisions of 
OGRA Ordinance and rules regulations (sic) made there 
under. Hence, these rules have no legal effect, having 
being (sic) made under statutes which ceased to have any 
effect on the commencement of OGRA Ordinance.” 
HRC No.20107-G/2013 
12
Furthermore, in its letter dated 09.08.2011, OGRA mentioned that the 
Explosives Act, 1884 and Petroleum Act, 1934 do not mention any 
powers of the CIE with respect to Gas Cylinders; and that in any event 
the OGRA Ordinance repealed these laws. Therefore, the basic 
contention of the CIE was that previously, OGRA was arguing that the 
MIGS Rules have no legal effect whereas in the instant case they 
argued that the MIGS Rules mandate the responsibility of the CIE with 
regards to CNG cylinders. 
 
12. 
 
From the aforementioned facts and contentions, one point 
is clear above all others. This is a case of criminal negligence on the 
part of the responsible authorities. Because of this patently obvious 
criminal negligence, the liability of those responsible must not only be 
founded in terms of laws such as the OGRA Ordinance, MVO, MVR, 
MIGS Rules and CNG Rules etc. The responsible parties must also be 
dealt with under the provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC) 
relating to culpable homicide and grievous bodily harm depending on 
the facts and circumstances of the case. 
 
13. 
 
The question remains; who are the responsible parties? 
The report of the Commissioner, Gujrat is particularly thorough and 
has proved instructive in fixing responsibility for the incident. The 
liability of Farrukh Sohail, MVE, and Mohsin Riaz, Secretary DRTA is 
apparent in the terms of the MVR, which provide at Rule 35: 
“35. Issue and renewal of certificate of fitness.- 
(1)(a) The authority prescribed to issue or renew a 
certificate of fitness... shall be:- 
(ii) ...the Motor Vehicles Examiner appointed by the 
Inspector-General, Police... 
HRC No.20107-G/2013 
13
...Provided that the Regional Transport Authority may 
authorise any licensed Automobile Workshop to perform 
the functions of the Motor Vehicles Examiner.”   
It is the responsibility of the MVE to inspect and ensure that PSVs in 
particular are roadworthy; and as is apparent from Rule 35, the 
Secretary, DRTA oversees the functions of the MVE because he can 
appoint automobile workshops to perform the functions of the MVE. 
Moreover, the Secretary, DRTA is admittedly responsible for issuing 
route permits.  
 
14. 
 
The omissions by these two officials are numerous. Firstly, 
the petrol cans inside the vehicle constitute a violation of Rule 199(3) 
of the MVR, which reads, “The fuel tank of every public service vehicle 
shall be so placed that no over-flow therefrom shall fall upon any 
woodwork or accumulate where it can readily be ignited. The filling 
points of all fuel tanks shall be outside the body of the vehicle...” Not 
only did Farrukh Sohail, MVE fail to take action, these dangerous 
violations of the MVR were not even in his notice. In this regard it is 
pertinent to recall the letter dated 10.12.2011 noted above which 
referenced Rule 199 and the obligation to remove illegally fitted CNG 
cylinders. Such directions were issued numerous times by a number of 
authorities but their implementation was never ensured. Secondly, and 
even more glaringly, the vehicle involved in the incident had an 
expired fitness certificate and was utilising unauthorised and 
unapproved CNG cylinders. This is apparent from the Commissioner, 
Gujrat’s report, which states, “As per office record the fitness 
certificate of this vehicle had already been expired on 30.04.2013 and 
the vehicle was presented for obtaining fitness certificate on 
01.05.2013. The stickers regarding cylinder and CNG kit was not 
HRC No.20107-G/2013 
14
produced therefore the case was refused.” Thirdly, Mohsin Riaz, 
Secretary DRTA, admittedly neglected to even once visit Sarghoda 
road (where the incident occurred) during the month of May, 2013. 
Fourthly, the vehicle was on the roads despite the fact that it had not 
been issued a route permit by the DRTA. Therefore, Farrukh Soahil, 
MVE, and Mohsin Riaz, Secretary DRTA abjectly failed to perform their 
duties by allowing dangerous vehicles to ply the roads. The lives of 
sixteen innocent children and a brave teacher would have been saved 
had they performed their duties to even the bare minimum as 
mandated by law. Their gross omissions are criminal in nature and 
should be dealt with under the PPC.  
 
15. 
 
The opposing contentions of OGRA and the CIE shall now 
be addressed. We are of the opinion that both OGRA and the CIE are 
responsible in the present case. Under section 23(2)(b) and (d) of the 
OGRA Ordinance, it is the responsibility of OGRA to grant licenses to 
those who  “construct or operate... CNG testing facility or... CNG 
storage facility”, as well as those who “undertake transporting, filling, 
marketing or distributing of LPG, LNG or CNG”. Therefore, it is the 
responsibility of OGRA to ensure that CNG is safely stored in cylinders 
which have been manufactured in Pakistan. With respect to cylinders 
which are imported, Rule 80 of the MIGS Rules provides: 
“80. Licence for import of gas cylinders.- No person 
shall import any cylinder filled or intended to be filled with 
any compressed gas except under and in accordance with 
the condition of the licence granted under these rules.”  
Therefore, both OGRA and the CIE bear responsibility for being 
criminally negligent regarding the use of unauthorised CNG cylinders. 
OGRA has admittedly taken responsibility to tackle the proliferation of 
HRC No.20107-G/2013 
15
unauthorised CNG cylinders. This is evident from the letter dated 
19.11.2012 from OGRA to the Chief Secretaries of all four provinces 
wherein OGRA has expressly stated, “...OGRA is initiating action 
against the CNG stations found involved in refuelling uncertified 
commercial CNG vehicles.” OGRA has sent many such letters and 
notifications but has been lax on the implementing the same. The CIE 
also has responsibility to test and condemn cylinders, to ensure that 
owners of cylinders keep record of the maintenance of cylinders, to 
periodically retest cylinders and to cancel or suspend licenses where 
there is imminent public danger under the MIGS Rules. It is pertinent 
to highlight the obligation to oversee the filling of cylinders by a 
competent person appointed by the CIE under Rule 143 of the MIGS 
Rules. If only this is ensured, many lives can be saved. We are of the 
considered opinion that the presence of such a competent person will 
result in the prevention of tragic incidents such as the one in the 
present case.  
 
16. 
 
Moreover, the fact that the driver of the vehicle, 
Muhammad Irfan, kept cans of petrol in the vehicle highlights the 
illegal availability of open petrol, which is a violation of Rule 21 of the 
Petroleum Rules, 1985, which must be checked by OGRA. OGRA has 
also issued a number of notifications and letters in this regard but has 
failed to ensure their implementation. Thus, it is abundantly clear that 
OGRA and the CIE have also completely failed to fulfil their obligations 
under the relevant laws and are thereby liable for criminal action 
under the PPC for the deaths of sixteen children and the teacher.  
 
HRC No.20107-G/2013 
16
17. 
 
The report of the Commissioner, Gujrat also highlights the 
responsibility of the Excise and Taxation Department in failing to 
register the change in ownership and fuel setting of the vehicle as well 
as the Punjab Education Department in registering the Jinnah School, 
Mangowal without conducting the proper inspections. It is also not out 
of place to mention that the vehicle had third-party insurance, 
whereas PSVs should not be covered by such insurance under the 
MVR. The conclusion that is apparent from these multiple failures on 
the part of multiple public authorities is highly disturbing due to 
magnitude of the loss in the case at hand. It is difficult to find words to 
completely describe the utter paralysis of the bureaucracy that has 
been showcased in the present case. If just the MVE had ensured that 
a vehicle with petrol cans inside it could not be used as a PSV, the 
children would be alive today. If just the Secretary, DRTA had ensured 
that a vehicle without a route permit was not plying the road, the 
children would be alive today. If just OGRA had ensured that only 
licensed CNG cylinders were available to the masses, the children 
would be alive today. If just the CIE had inspected the CNG cylinders 
as provided in the MIGS Rules, the children would be alive today. In 
short, if just one of the authorities had performed its functions in 
accordance with law, we would not have had to hear of this tragedy. 
These egregious omissions therefore deserve to be countenanced in 
terms of culpable homicide and grievous bodily harm under the PPC. 
18. 
 
It is unfortunate that ours is a country replete with 
regulation with little emphasis on implementation. The various rules 
and regulations mentioned hereinabove are voluminous; teeming with 
provisions that seem to cover a multitude of eventualities and 
situations. However, as evidenced by the unfortunate incident in the 
HRC No.20107-G/2013 
17
instant 
case, 
there 
is 
absolute 
apathy 
when 
it 
comes 
to 
implementation of these provisions. Motor vehicles, fossil fuels and 
potential explosives are subject to all of the regulation that has been 
detailed hereinabove for one basic reason above all: the protection and 
preservation of the life of the citizens of this country. It is trite law that 
Article 9 of the Constitution, 1973 guarantees the protection of the life 
of citizens. It is the duty of the State to ensure such protection by 
following relevant laws which are made to protect and preserve life. In 
this behalf, reference may be made to Suo Motu Action regarding law 
and order situation in Karachi (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 997) wherein 
we relied on the celebrated judgement in Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 
1994 Supreme Court 693) in dilating upon the concept of the right to 
life. In Shehla Zia’s case, we held as under:- 
“Article 9 of the Constitution provides that no person shall 
be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law. 
The word "life" is very significant as it covers all facts of 
human existence. The word "life" has not been defined in 
the Constitution but it does not mean nor can it be 
restricted only to the vegetative or animal life or mere 
existence from conception to death. Life includes all such 
amenities and facilities which a person born in a free 
country is entitled to enjoy with dignity, legally and 
constitutionally. For the purposes of present controversy 
suffice to say that a person is entitled to protection of-law 
from being exposed to hazards of electromagnetic fields or 
any other such hazards which may be due to installation 
and construction of any grid station, any factory, power 
station or such like installations. Under the common law a 
person whose right of easement, property or health is 
adversely affected by any act of omission or commission of 
a third person- in the neighbourhood or at a far off place, 
he is entitled to seek an injunction and also claim 
damages, but the Constitutional rights are higher than the 
HRC No.20107-G/2013 
18
legal rights conferred by law be it municipal law or the 
common law. Such a danger as depicted, the possibility of 
which cannot be excluded, is bound to affect a large 
number of people who may suffer from it unknowingly 
because of lack of awareness, information and education 
and also because such sufferance is silent and fatal and 
most of the people who would be residing near, under or 
at a dangerous distance of the grid station or such 
installation do not know that they are facing any risk or 
are likely to suffer by such risk. Therefore, Article 184 can 
be invoked because a large number of citizens throughout 
the country cannot make such representation and may not 
like to make it due to ignorance, poverty and disability. 
Only some conscientious citizens aware of their rights and 
the possibility of danger come forward.” 
 
19. 
 
As a consequence of above discussion it is held as under:- 
(i) 
All public carrying vehicles, including buses, vans, trucks, 
taxies, rikshaws, etc., not worthy of roads and are being 
driven throughout in the country contrary to the provisions 
of Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965, without obtaining fitness 
certificates as well as rout permits, are hereby ordered to 
be kept off the roads forthwith.  
A comprehensive report in this behalf shall be submitted 
by the Provincial Chief Secretaries and Chief Commissioner 
ICT within 30 days for our perusal in Chambers and 
passing further orders, if need be. 
(ii) 
All the Regional Transport Authorities in the Provinces are 
directed to issue fitness certificates strictly in accordance 
with the rules and not to allow any vehicle not worthy of 
roads to come on roads, thereby allowing the owners and 
HRC No.20107-G/2013 
19
the drivers to cause insecurity to the lives of the 
passengers, so that their lives could be protected from 
road accidents in future.  
(iii) 
Chief Inspector of Explosives, in exercise of powers 
conferred upon them under the Mineral Industrial Gases 
Safety (MIGS) Rules, 2010 read with Petroleum Rules, 
1937, shall ensure action against decanting of Liquefied 
Petroleum Gas (LPG), illegal sale of petrol and unfit 
vehicles, by carrying out inspection from time to time.  
(iv) 
The OGRA is also directed to ensure strict action against 
the license holders running the petrol pumps and CNG 
stations, if they are found selling lose petrol or providing 
CNG to the vehicles which have either unbranded cylinders 
or cylinders of substandard brands not approved by 
concerned authorities, as it appears that the reasons 
invariably of such like incidents are, either extinguishing of 
fire due to lose petrol lying inside the vehicles or due to 
explosion of cylinders which are manufactured contrary to 
the provisions of MIGS Rules, 2010 read with Gas Cylinder 
Rules, 1940.  
All commercial vehicle owners are hereby directed to 
remove from their vehicles the CNG cylinders which have 
not been fitted by the approved companies/authorized 
dealers, to avoid any such incident in future.  
(v) 
IGP, Punjab is directed to take appropriate action against 
the persons who are responsible for the happening of 
incident of Gujrat dated 25.05.2013. The Government of 
HRC No.20107-G/2013 
20
Punjab is also directed to provide compensation to the 
aggrieved families of the children and the teacher, who 
lost their lives in the said incident, if already they have not 
been compensated.    
20. 
 
Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.  
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
Announced in open Court on 09.12.2013 at Islamabad 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
Approved For Reporting