Disposed

Canon Granites (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jul 2013WA/105/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal challenging a judgment regarding police restrictions on tipper lorries, the Court noted a subsequent Government notification restricting lorry movements under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 2012. The Court held that deciding the validity of the prior judgment was academic and allowed the appellant to challenge the new notification.

What did the court decide?

Disposed; appellant at liberty to challenge the Government notification under Section 115 of the MV Act.

Canon Granites (P) Ltd. Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2013/27TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

WA.No. 105 of 2012 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 30041/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 16-12-2011

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITIO:

¶8

CANON GRANITES (P) LTD. PERUMPILAVU P.O., OTTAPPILAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SIMON K.FRANCIS.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

4. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE THRISSUR-680001.

¶15

5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE P.O.,

¶16

THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN-680 003.

¶17

ADDl.6TH RESPONDENT

¶18

ADDL.R6. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CONTRACTORS ORGANISATION, LX 1589, AMBADI PLAZA, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONENT IN THE WRIT APPEAL, AS PER ORDER DATED 2.2.2012 IN IA.71/12.

¶19

¶20

WA.No. 105 of 2012 ()

¶21

ADDL.67 TO R9 IMPLEADED

¶22

ADDL.R7. P.M.ABU BACKER, S/O.ALAVI, AGED 53, PALAKKALMEETHAL HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE, IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 7TH RESPONDENT IN WRIT APPEAL AS PER ORDER DATED 2.2.2012 IN IA. 101.12.

¶23

ADDL.R8 .THE ALL KERALA CRUSHER OWNERS ASSOCIATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, REG.NO.711/4/2004 BUILDING NO.357/A, MAVELIPURAM, PIN 682030, KKKANAD ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT MUDAKKALIL MATHAI, S/O.ABRAHAM, AGED 81. IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 8TH RESPONDENT IN WRIT APPEAL AS PER ORDER DATED 2.2.12 IN IA.102/12.

¶24

ADDL.R9. REGISTERED METAL CRUSHER UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, KOTTACKAL TC-2/3497, PATTOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM 695 004, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESDIENT, P.C. SREEDHARAN NAIR RESIDING AT MALLELIL HOUSE, KONNI, IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 9^TH RESPONDENT IN WRIT APPEAL AS PER ORDER DATED 2.2.12 IN IA.137/12

¶25

R1-R5 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)

¶26

SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY SRI.T.SANJAY BY ADVS.SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.ANEESH JAMES BY ADVS.SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB SMT.NISHA JOHN

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

¶29

WA.No. 105 of 2012 () ----------------------

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶32

ANNEXURE-1. COPY OF THE DRAFT NOTIFICATION WITHOUT DATE PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

¶33

ANNEXURE-II. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT TO THE APPELLANT.

¶34

ANNEXURE-III. COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.90/2012/TRAN. DATED 15.12.2012.

¶35

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE : NIL

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

Manjula Chellur, C.J. & K.Vinod Chandran, J.

¶40

-----------------------------------------Writ Appeal No.105 of 2012

¶41

Dated this, the 18^th day of July, 2013

¶42

J U D G M E N T

¶43

Manjula Chellur,C.J.:

¶44

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Government Pleader. On earlier occasion, the appellant approached this Court challenging Exhibit P3 as being without authority or jurisdiction. Exhibit P3 is the instruction issued by the Director General of Police restricting the movement of tipper lorries at particular hours. The stand of the appellant/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was, under the Kerala Police Act of 1960 no such power is vested in the State Police Chief. Such restriction issued under Exhibit P3, therefore, deserves to be quashed. So far as the stand of the respondents, having regard to the number of accidents occurring during peak hours, especially near the educational institutions, the Director General of Police issued Exhibit P3 in exercise of the powers under Kerala Police Act of 2011. The learned Judge after referring to the background under which Exhibit

¶45

W.A.No.105 of 2012 : 2 :

¶46

P3 came to be issued and having regard to the factual situation held that if such notification is issued by exercising powers under Section 4(i) of the Kerala Police Act, there was no need to interfere with Exhibit P3; as such power is available to the police. Aggrieved by the same the appellant is before us.

¶47

The main contention of the appellant so far as the judgment of the learned Single Judge is, when Exhibit P3 came to be issued, Kerala Police Act of 2011 is not even in existence, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in placing reliance on the provisions of Section 4(i) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 to approve the issuance of Exhibit P3 by the Director General of Police. He also contends that Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the State Government or any authority authorized by the Government on this behalf to issue such notification. This is in the interest of safety of the general public or convenience or taking into account the nature of road or bridge so as to restrict or prohibit movements of the vehicles.

¶48

The learned Government Pleader brought to our notice during the course of hearing of this writ appeal, that the Government

¶49

W.A.No.105 of 2012 : 3 :

¶50

in exercise of its powers under Section 115 of the M.V.Act, issued notification S.R.O.No.864/2012 vide G.O.(P).No.90/2012/Tran.

¶51

dated 15.12.2012 restricting the movements of the tipper lorries/vehicles equipped with tipping mechanism during the peak hours in the morning and the evening on the roads all over the State. In the light of the issuance of notification in S.R.O. No.864/2012, we are of the opinion, deciding the controversial issue whether the judgment of the learned Single Judge is justified or not will merely be academic and the appellant is at liberty to challenge the above notification of the Government, if it desires so.

¶52

With these observation, we dispose of this appeal.

¶53

Sd/Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice Sd/K.Vinod Chandran, jma/190713 Judge. ( true copy )

Canon Granites (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canon Granites (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala

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

C.N.Vijayakumari Amma Vs G.Haridharan

N.Sankunni Menon Vs Govt.of Kerala and Another

Uco Bank Vs P.v.Balamani Amma

K.P. Prasanth Kumar Vs Annamma George

Dhanalekshmi P.V. Vs K.B.Subashchandran

Shri.N.Ramadas & Another Vs K.B.Subashchandran & 7 Others