Allowed

Mohammed Ali v. the District Collector

Kerala HC21 May 2012WP(C)/7317/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the Grama Panchayat must provide vehicle markings to the second petitioner upon production of the vehicle. This is required to enable the petitioners to remove river sand they purchased without obstruction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Panchayat to provide marking to the vehicle owned by the second petitioner forthwith upon production of the vehicle.

Mohammed Ali Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2012/31ST VAISAKHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 7317 of 2012 (L)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. MOHAMMED ALI, PUTHIYOTTIL VEEDU, KODIYATHOOR POST, MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673602.

¶8

2. MOHAMMED FAHIZ, S/O.MOHAMMAD ALI, PUTHIYOTTIL VEEDU KODIYATHOOR POST, MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE PIN 673602.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE-673001.

¶12

2. KODIYATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KODIYATHOOR POST, MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673602, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANGEETHA

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 7317 of 2012 (L)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1:-	COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE NO.KL-11-AE 4949.
EXT.P2:-	COPY OF PASS DATED 17.01.2012 ISSUED TO THE IST PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3:-	COPY OF PASS DATED 17.01.2012 ISSUED TO THE IST PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4:-	COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 24.01.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5:-	COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 25.01.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6:-	COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.10.2011 ISSUED BY ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE.
EXT.P7:-	COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 08.08.2011 IN WP(C)NO.28871/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶25

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶26

W.P.(C).No.7317 of 2012-L

¶27

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 21st day of May, 2012

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Both the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the second respondent Panchayat in not allowing their vehicle to be loaded with river sand. According to the petitioners, the vehicle involved is KL-11-AE 4949. Exts.P2 and P3 are the copies of the passes issued by the second respondent to the first petitioner who had purchased 2 ½ metric tons each of river sand from the second respondent Grama Panchayat. It is stated that the obstruction caused by the vehicle owners in the kadavu has resulted in the petitioners filing a complaint before the second respondent as per Ext.P4. The petitioners are relying upon Ext.P6 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate and Ext.P7 judgment of this Court. It is also pointed out that the sand is still remaining in the specified kadavu.

¶30

The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the mater. It is mainly pointed out that on the advice of the District Collector, vehicles were parked in the kadavu so as to enable willing purchasers to load sand in the said vehicles for the purpose of transportation. It is also pointed out that those vehicles have a mark embossed on the body of the vehicle which will

¶31

W.p(c). No. 7317/2012

¶32

-:2:-

¶33

enable the persons loading the sand to know the quantity of sand that is to be loaded in the said vehicle. The marking is actually the indicator which shows the level upto which the sand has to be loaded. Absence of marking on the vehicle leads to confusion. Learned counsel for the Panchayat submitted that there are no facilities for weighing the vehicles initially without sand and after loading the sand and finally in para 8 of the counter affidavit, it is stated as follows:

¶34

“The above direction does not give any blanket right to the purchasers to bring any vehicle of their choice for loading sand. They may bring any vehicle but the same should have the marking specified by the local authority so that the quantity of sand to be loaded could be decided. The purchasers could be given the liberty to load sand in vehicles of their choice, provided they get the marking done at their expenses.”

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners therefore submitted that the petitioners will produce the vehicle before the Panchayat for providing the marking, so that sand can be loaded without any difficulty. The same is recorded.

¶36

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Panchayat to forthwith

¶37

provide the marking to the vehicle owned by the second petitioner, on

¶38

W.p(c). No. 7317/2012

¶39

-:3:-

¶40

production of the vehicle. Thereafter, the petitioners will be allowed to

¶41

remove the sand.

¶42

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶43

(T.R.Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶44

kav/

¶45

W.p(c). No. 7317/2012

¶46

-:4:-

Mohammed Ali v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ali v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Kumar V.P. Vs District Officer, Kpsc

Sajeev Kumar.S. Vs Government of Kerala & Others

C.T.Devassy Vs Pension Board

Abraham C Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Shahina.P.T Vs State of Kerala

T.N.Babu Vs the Senior Geologist