Disposed

Ramya and Others v. C.I.of Police,Paravur Police Station

Kerala HC14 Oct 2011WP(C)/8076/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged indiscriminate autorickshaw parking obstructing shop access in Paravur. The court directed the Police Circle Inspector to ensure no obstruction exists while directing the Municipality to provide dedicated parking spaces, noting its prior default.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the Circle Inspector to ensure no indiscriminate parking obstructs ingress/egress while directing the Municipality to provide dedicated parking for the area.

Ramya and Others Vs C.I.of Police,Paravur… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 8076 of 2011(H)

¶6

-------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-----------------------

¶9

1. R.S.REMYA, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O.BABURAJAN, PROPRIETOR,

¶10

M/S.'JEWEL SALES AND SERVICE', OPPOSITE EASTERN END OF PARAVUR MARKET COMPLEX, PARAVUR-PARIPPALLY ROAD, PARAVUR.

¶11

2. MOHANAN, AGED 49 YEARS,

¶12

S/O.ANANDU ACHARI, PROPRIETOR,

¶13

M/S.'AFIN JEWELLERY WORKS', OPPOSITE EASTERN END OF PARAVUR MARKET COMPLEX, PARAVUR-PARIPPALLY ROAD, PARAVUR.

¶14

3. R.THAMPI, AGED 48 YEARS,

¶15

S/O.RAGHAVAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.'ATHIRA FABRICS', OPPOSITE EASTERN END OF PARAVUR MARKET COMPLEX, PARAVUR-PARIPPALLY ROAD, PARAVUR.

¶16

4. SUMA VASAVAN, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.VASAVAN, PROPRIETRIX, M/S.THOTTATHU VILAYIL TRADERS', OPPOSITE EASTERN END OF PARAVUR MARKET COMPLEX, PARAVUR-PARIPPALLY ROAD, PARAVUR.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR

¶18

RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

------------------------

¶20

1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVUR, KOLLAM-691001.

¶21

2. THE PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PARAVUR, KOLLAM-691001.

¶22

WPC NO.8076/11

¶23

-2-

¶24

*ADDL.R3. A.ANILKUMAR, S/O.ASOKAN AUTORICKSHAW DRIVER BY PROFESSION, RESIDING AT PARAVILA VEEDU KOONAYIL, PARAUR P.O, KOLLAM DT 691016.

¶25

( IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT AS PERORDER DATED 01/04/11 IN IA 5704/11.)*

¶26

ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL FOR ADDL.R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR FOR R2

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

WPC NO.8076/11

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶31

EXT.P1: TRUE COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE PARAVUR MUNIICPALITY TOWARDS LICENSE FEE FOR THE YEAR 2011 IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS' SHOP ROOMS.

¶32

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 3.3.11 WITH COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXTS. OF R3

¶34

EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT NO;PCO-2/1727/2010 DATED 10.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, R.T.A. KOLLAM TO THE PETITIONER.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 8076 OF 2011

¶39

=====================

¶40

Dated this the 14^th day of October, 2011

¶41

J U D G M E N T

¶42

Petitioners are businessmen having shops within the area of Paravur Municipality, the 2^nd respondent in this writ petition. Their complaint is that, on account of the indiscriminate parking of autorickshaws in front of their shop rooms, ingress and egress of shop keepers and customers is obstructed. It is complaining of the above, the writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to take steps for removal of the unauthorised autorickshaw parking.

¶43

The additional 3^rd respondent representing the auto rickshaw drivers of the area submit that when the petitioners made complaint to the 1^st respondent, a meeting was convened, and that, based on the understanding arrived at in the said meeting, they are parking their vehicles. It is also submitted that, in the process, no obstruction is caused to the petitioners as alleged by them.

¶44

Learned Government Pleader, who has obtained instructions in the matter submits that though it is the

¶45

:2 :

¶46

WPC No. 8076/11

¶47

responsibility of the 2^nd respondent Municipality to provide parking place, Municipality has not done anything in that behalf. In so far as the meeting convened by the 1^st respondent is concerned, it is submitted that though a meeting was convened as stated, both sides have dishonored the understanding, as a result of which, the complaint is now raised.

¶48

While I agree with the learned Government Pleader that it is the responsibility of the 2^nd respondent to provide parking places, the absence of such a parking place cannot be to the detriment of the traders in the area. Therefore, if there is a complaint of discriminate auto parking resulting in obstruction to the ingress and egress raised by the traders, necessarily, it is the responsibility of the 1^st respondent to ensure that such complaints are redressed. In that view, I direct that, while the 2^nd respondent will take steps to provide parking place for the autorickshaws of the area, the 1^st respondent will ensure that there is no indiscriminate parking of autorickshaws in front of the shops of the petitioners resulting in the obstruction of ingress and egress of the shop keepers, customers and others to the respective

WPC No. 8076/11

:3 :

shops.

Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶53

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶54

Ramya and Others v. C.I.of Police,Paravur Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramya and Others v. C.I.of Police,Paravur Police Station

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

Jithin.C.Raj Vs State of Kerala and Others

K.a.Devarajan Vs the Industrial Development Bank

Rafi Ahammed Vs Dt.Collector

P.K.Rajan Vs State of Kerala & Others

Raghunath T.V. Vs District Collector and Others

A.Sharafudeen Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.