Disposed

Hamza and Another v. Koovappady Grama Panchayath and Others

Kerala HC9 Mar 2007WP(C)/7377/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-day disposal of a writ petition alleging violation of queue system at a river sand loading centre. Petitioner sought equitable load distribution. Court referred to a prior decision regarding a nearby Panchayat and issued directions for enforcement of queue discipline and police action on complaints.

What did the court decide?

Directions to enforce queue system for equitable load distribution; police to act on complaints of violations.

Hamza and Another Vs Koovappady Grama… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2007 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1928

¶4

WP(C).No. 7377 of 2007(C) -------------------------

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

¶7

HAMZA M.K., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU MOHAMMED, MULLAPPILLY HOUSE, CHOWARA P.O., EDNAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 45 YEARS, KATTUNGAL HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR P.O., KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.A.NAVAS

¶10

SRI.SHABEER ALI SMT.SIMI C.SIVASANKAR SRI.T.K.SASIKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

KOOVAPPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶16

R2 & R3 BY ADV. SMT. T.B. RAMANI, GOVT. PLEADER.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

¶19

W.P.(C) No. 7377 OF 2007

¶20

Dated this the 9^th day of March, 2007

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Even though the respondents have been served with notice by special messenger, none of them have entered appearance.

¶23

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not enforcing of the queue system on first come first served basis at a river sand loading centre recognised by the 1^st respondent by name Manikyathan Kadavu and this results in undue advantage being given to those vehicle owners who are able to influence the respondents. The allegation is that the influence is by using muscle power and as a result of this equitable distribution of loads is denied to the petitioners and other similarly placed drivers.

¶24

The issue seems to have been considered by this Court in the case of a nearby Panchayat by name Kanjoor Panchayat, I am of the view that the decision taken by this Court in Ext.P7 case can be made applicable in this case also. Accordingly, on the reasons stated in Ext.P7, this Writ Petition will also stand disposed of issuing the following directions:

¶25

The respondents will ensure that the queue system to the extent possible is followed at the Manikyathan Kadavu and that all the vehicle

¶26

WPC No.7377/2007

¶27

¶28

owners/drivers get equitable distribution of loads and it will be open to the petitioners to approach the Panchayat and respondents 2 and 3 if any of the vehicle owners/drivers violate the queue system. On receipt of such complaint, the respondents 2 and 3 will take appropriate action against the culprits.

¶29

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶30

btt

¶31

WPC No.7377/2007

¶32

Hamza and Another v. Koovappady Grama Panchayath and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hamza and Another v. Koovappady Grama Panchayath and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Francis Vs District Collector & Others

Rappai Vs Thekkumkara Panchayath Rep. by Secretary

Nelson Mathew Vs Thiruvalla Municipality

C.K.Koshy Vs District Collector

Abdul Majeed Vs District Collector, Malappuram

P.C.Sajudheen Vs Edavanna Grama Panchayath