Dismissed

N.K.Sasidharan v. Superintendent of Police and Others

Kerala HC10 Mar 2011WP(C)/808/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A stage carriage operator sought police protection to ply without touching the Tanur bus stand in defiance of a meeting decision shifting the stop. The High Court of Kerala held that the shift was a minimal alteration for traffic management and disallowed the petition, finding no need for writ intervention.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissing the petitioner's claim for police protection and directions to respondents allowing the shift in bus stop.

N.K.Sasidharan Vs Superintendent of Police and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 808 of 2011(A)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

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

¶8

N.K.SASIDHARAN, S/O.PARANGODAN, NEDIYA KANHEERATHINGAL KELANARI HOUSE, CHENAKKALANGADI P.O., THENHIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI. I. DINESH MENON

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM -676505.

¶13

2. THE DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUR - 676 101.

¶14

3. THE SUB INSPECT OF POLICE, TANUR - 676 302.

¶15

4. THE PRESIDENT, THANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, TANUR - 676 302.

¶16

5. P.T.ILLYAS, S/O.P.T.R.BAVA, TANUR - 676 302.

¶17

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R4 BY ADVS. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.HARISH R. MENON R5 BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SMT.M.SINDHU THANKAM

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

...2/-

¶21

WP(C).No. 808 of 2011(A)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 19.1.2010. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 4.1.2011 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 4.1.2011 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P4 : ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXT.R5(a) : COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 4.1.2011 ISSUED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANUR.

¶29

EXT.R5(b) : COPY OF PETITION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, TIRUR.

¶30

EXT.R4(a) : COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, EVIDENCING THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AT TANUR TOWN DURING THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2010.

¶31

EXT.R4(b) : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION.

¶32

EXT.R4(c) : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE AUTO-TAXI UNION.

¶33

EXT.R4(d) : COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 7.12.2010. EXT.R4(e) : COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN IN THE MEETING DATED 7.12.2010.

¶34

EXT.R4(f) : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THIS DEPONENT TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY.

¶35

EXT.R4(g) COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH, EVIDENCING THE PRESENT SITUATION PREVAILING IN TANUR TOWN.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶40

WPC No.808 of 2011

¶41

Dated this the 9^th March, 2011

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

Basant, J.

¶44

The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection to the petitioner to ply his stage carriage on the route Kozhikode to Tirur against any illegal objection that respondents 4

¶45

and 5 may raise against the petitioner.

¶46

Fundamental facts are not in dispute now. The petitioner is the holder of a stage carriage permit and he operates on the route Kozhikode to Tirur vide Ext.P1 permit. Clause-vii of the stage carriage permit clearly stipulates that the route on which the petitioner is to operate his vehicle is Kozhikode-Tirur Via Feroke N B Ramanattukara University Chelari Thayilakadavu Parappanangadi without touching Tanur bus stand. (emphasis supplied)

¶47

wpc No.808/2011 2

¶48

The crux of the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is now being compelled by the fourth respondent, President of the Tanur Panchayat and the fifth respondent, a named individual to touch the Tanur Bus stand contrary to the specific stipulations of Ext.P1 permit. This is impermissible. Police may be directed to afford protection to the petitioner to operate his vehicle strictly in accordance with the directions of Ext.P1. This in short is the plea of the petitioner.

¶49

Respondents 4 and 5 have entered appearance. Respondent No.4 represents the Tanur Grama Panchayat. Respondent No.5 though shown as a private individual, he contends that he is the Secretary of the Bus Passenger's Association. Respondents 4 and 5 raised identical contentions against the prayer made in the petition. Respondents 1 to 3 are represented by the learned Government Pleader.

¶50

According to respondents 4 and 5, there was helpless mess of traffic created at the Tanur Junction. All concerned clamoured for arrangements to bring in sanity in the traffic. This obliged the Panchayat to call for a

¶51

wpc No.808/2011 3

¶52

meeting of all concerned. At the said meeting, persons who represented for the Panchayat, local police, bus passengers and association of permit holders, were all present. It was decided that the bus stop on the route Kozhikode to Tirur can be altered. Hitherto, the buses were being stopped by the side of the main road to the north, south, east and west of the Tanur junction. Such stoppage of vehicles at such locations was creating confusion and havoc in the proper management of the traffic. Therefore, it was decided in the presence of all concerned that stage carriages should not stop at the bus stops which were earlier available on the north, south, east and west of the Tanur Junction. A decision was taken to shift the bus stop on the Tiroor-Parappanangadi road at the Tanur junction to a new bus stop by the side of the Post Office. According to respondents 4 and 5, there is no insistence that the bus of the petitioner must touch the bus stand which is situated farther away on the railway station road on the east. The insistence was only that the buses coming from the Tirur Parappanangadi road should not stop near the Tirur junction, instead, they must go to

¶53

wpc No.808/2011 4

¶54

the new bus stop on the railway station road and then resume their journey back to the Tanur Junction and proceed towards Parappanangadi. According to respondents 4 and 5, therefore, it was not a case of insistence that the petitioner's vehicle must touch the Tanur Bus stand. The insistence was only that it should not stop at the Tirur-Parappanangadi road at the Tanur junction, but instead must stop at the new bus stop prescribed near the Post Office. This is only a traffic regulation in public interest which the Panchayat is competent to insist. This does not involve any deviation of the route prescribed for the permit owner. There is no insistence on violation of the conditions of permit. The mere fact that the petitioner's vehicle will have to travel to the new bus stop which is on the railway station road cannot be reckoned as violation of the permit condition or insistence in violation of the terms of the permit.

¶55

The learned counsel for the petitioner counters this stand taken by respondents 4 and 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this amounts to violation of the conditions of permit.

¶56

wpc No.808/2011 5

¶57

There can be no doubt that the petitioner's vehicle

¶58

is not bound to touch the Tanur bus stand considering the very specific stipulation in Ext.P1 permit. Respondents 4 and 5 take the specific stand that no one is insisting that the petitioner's vehicle must touch the Tanur bus stand. Therefore, such specific violation of the terms of Ext.P1 permit is not insisted or intended.

¶59

The short question that remains is whether the abolition of bus stops near the Tanur Junction and insistence of buses stopping at the new bus stop near the Post Office would amount indirectly to violation of the conditions of permit. In this context, the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 rely on the decision in AIR 1989 Kerala 271, (D.B.) Chokli Moideenkutty v State Transport Appellate Tribunal . The particular reliance is placed on paragraph-6 which we extract below:

¶60

“When a route passes through a village, town or city, there may exist several alternative entry points and exit points. When the R.T.A. takes the decision to open a route, one of the several alternatives available will have been chosen. If on account of subsequent traffic regulations, motor vehicles are not permitted to go by the particular road contemplated by the notified route and traffic is permitted by other alternative road, the

¶61

wpc No.808/2011 6

¶62

question for consideration is as to whether it amounts to variation of the notified route. Such alterations within the limits of the city resulting from traffic regulations are minimal and cannot be regarded as having the effect of varying the notified route itself. In such a situation, it would not be necessary to abandon the proceedings initiated for grant of stage carriage permit for the notified route.”

¶63

Reliance was further placed on the later decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in (1996(1) KLJ 345) Ernakulam District Private Bus Operators Assn. &

¶64

Anr. v R.T.A. & Others. Reliance is made on paragraph-6 which also we extract below.

¶65

“A Division Bench of this Court in Chokli Moideenkutty v S.T.A.T., Ernakulam (AIR 1989 Ker.271) has taken the view that if on account of subsequent traffic regulations, motor vehicles are not permitted to go by the particular road contemplated by the notified route and traffic is permitted by other alternative road, such alterations cannot be regarded as having the effect of varying the notified route itself. The Division Bench also took note of the fact that such alterations within the limits of the city resulting from traffic regulations are minimal and are not variations of the route. The Division Bench further held that the operation on a notified route becomes impossible as a consequence of certain traffic regulations and if the alternative lines of the route that may be required to be followed substantially affect the integrity of the route, it would amount to varying the route. Applying the principles laid down by the Division Bench, the alteration of a route within the city due to traffic regulations is minimum.”

¶66

wpc No.808/2011 7

¶67

These observations were made in different contexts, but it is relevant to note that the observations relate to the question of minimal variation/alteration to comply with traffic regulations.

¶68

There is a dispute raised as to whether the Panchayat is entitled to shift the bus stops. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 in this context places reliances on the observations in paragraph-9 of the judgment in Sukumaran Nair v Secretary, Vazhoor Grama Panchayat (2003(2) KLT 903). We extract the relevant passage.

¶69

“In fact, what has relevance if at all is R.206. But, while looking at R.206, it does not appear to cast a mandatory requirement. The Regional Transport Authority, under the Rules may, if no stopping place has been fixed for stage carriages in accordance with the provisions of any statute, fix such places for such carriages after consultation with such other authority as it may deem desirable. Thus, this is only on invitation alone. It can be on a request made by the Panchayat, but this does not take away the right of the Panchayat to prescribe that in the matter of bus stops it has a say and even without consultation with the Regional Transport Authority. This is possible to be interpreted so for the reason that being a local authority a Panchayat will be conscious about the requirements and needs of the citizens there and as has been done in the present case on a general consultation it would be possible for them to prescribe restrictions or changes in public interest.

¶70

wpc No.808/2011 8

¶71

As a matter of fact, the Regional Transport Authority may not usually be equipped to decide about a change in the location of the bus stop in a rural area. Therefore, I do not think that the Panchayat has erred in prescribing that in the matter of buses coming from the eastern side, they have to alight and load passengers from a newly notified point.”

¶72

No challenge is raised before us on the correctness of the dictum in Sukumaran Nair v Secretary, Vazhoor Grama Panchayat (supra).

¶73

We are of the opinion in these circumstances that the right of the Panchayat to prescribe the bus stop in the interests of orderly regulation of traffic cannot be disputed. We are informed that the distance from the Tanur junction to the new bus stop near the Post Office is hardly 35 metres. We are of the opinion that the insignificant deviation which the petitioner is obliged to take consequent to the shifting of the Bus stop cannot be said to amount to variation of the conditions of the permit as per Ext.P1. We hasten to observe that it is not insisted by any one that the petitioner's stage carriage must touch the Tanur bus stand.

¶74

We must also alertly remind ourselves that we

¶75

wpc No.808/2011 9

¶76

are called upon to invoke and exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We take note that the decision Ext.R4(3) is taken at a meeting of all concerned voluntarily. There can be no doubt that that stipulation is to avoid congestion at the Tanur Junction. We are, in these circumstances of the opinion that it is not necessary to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 226 to afford any orders of police protection to the petitioner. We repeat that we take note that there is no insistence that the petitioner's stage carriage must touch the Tanur bus stand. Insistence is only that it must stop at the newly established bus stop near the Post Office instead the bus stop near the Tanur Junction.

¶77

This writ petition is dismissed in the above circumstances with the above observations.

¶78

R.BASANT JUDGE

¶79

K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE

¶80

css/

N.K.Sasidharan v. Superintendent of Police and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.K.Sasidharan v. Superintendent of Police and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saju Thomas Vs the Sub Inspector of Police and Others

Karthikeyan.S Vs State of Kerala and Others

The Secretary and Another Vs Mr.Nasar.P and Others

Annie Joseph and Others Vs T.a.George @ Sebastian and Others

Alex Mathews Philips Vs Kerala Head Load Workers Welfare Board

Jose Vs the State of Kerala