Disposed

Giridas v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC1 Apr 2014WP(C)/2335/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge in Kerala directed that motor cabs be allowed to park in autorikshaw stands temporarily due to space constraints. The court remitted the issue to the Regional Transport Authority to explore alternate long-term solutions while ensuring the affected parties appear for a meeting.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' prayer to prohibit motor cab parking dismissed; respondents permitted to park temporarily while RTA directed to find alternate solution.

Giridas Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2014/11TH CHAITHRA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 2335 of 2014 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

GIRIDAS AGED 33 YEARS

¶8

S/O. APPU, PUTHUVAL VILA VEEDU, MUTHANA P.O.

¶9

VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

RAMACHANDRAN

¶11

S/O. SREEDHARAN, 10/443, JIJI BHAVAN

¶12

MUTHANA P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

PRASAD

¶14

S/O. GANGADHARAN, PUTHANVILA VEEDU, MUTHANA P.O. VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR

¶16

RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ATTINGAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695101.

¶18

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695001.

¶19

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VARKALA POLICE STATION, VARKALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695141.

¶20

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, KALLAMBALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695605.

¶21

AJILAL A.

¶22

S/O. ANIRUDHAN, AJI BHAVAN, MUTHANA P.O. VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695146.

¶23

ASHA S.

¶24

W/O. AJILAL, AJI BHAVAN, MUTHANA P.O. VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695146.

¶25

WP(C).No. 2335 of 2014

¶26

-2-

¶27

THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶28

BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGE BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-042014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

WP(C).No. 2335 of 2014 (N)

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

EXHIBITS

¶33

EXHIBIT P1- THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS DRIVING LICENSE AUTORICKSHAW'S REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE AND THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE, PERMIT (VEHICLE BEARING NO. KL-16/L-2734, KI-02/AH-8914, KL-16/F-1903 RESPECTIVELY).

¶34

EXHIBIT P2- THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION AND THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT IN RESPECT TO THE VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO. KL-16/L-2024 OWNED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶35

EXHIBIT P3- THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20-01-2014.

¶36

EXHIBIT P4- THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 18742/2013 DATED 29-08-2013.

¶37

EXHIBIT R5(a)TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF THE VEHICLE MOTOR CAB BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-16-L-2024 EXHIBIT R5(b)TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO R6 EXHIBIT R5(c)TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF DIFFERENT STANDS SHOWIN THAT MOTOR CAB AND AUTORICKSHAW ARE PLYING FROM THE ONE AND SAME STAND EXHIBIT R5(d)TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 29.10.2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CI OF POLICE, VARKALA EXHIBIT R5(e)TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 16.1.14 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE C.I OF POLICE, VARKALA EXHIBIT R5(f)TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 13.1.14 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE I.G. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT R5(g)TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S.426/13 BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA

¶38

EXHIBIT R5(h)TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN I.A.3348/13 IN O.S.426/13 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, VARKALA

¶39

//True Copy//

¶40

P.A. To Judge

¶41

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J

¶42

- - - - W.P.(C).No. 2335 of 2014

¶43

- - - - Dated 1^st April, 2014

¶44

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

As noticed by the Division Bench in Ext.P4,, the entire controversy arose because a vehicle manufacturer came out with a new breed of vehicles called the “Motor cab (Taxi)”, so categorized by the Transport Authorities; plying and parking of which is objected to tooth and nail, by the operators of three wheel carriages commonly termed as 'autorikshaws'. There is no dispute that the vehicle now brought out running on four wheels would be a safer option for the public and the Transport Authorities, noticing this fact, has granted State wide permits to the said vehicles.

¶47

The prayer sought for in the above writ petition is for a direction that respondents 5 and 6, who are carrying on operation of “Motor

¶48

WP(C).2335/14

¶49

¶50

cab (Taxi)”, should not be allowed to park their vehicle in the parking place allotted to the petitioners, who are autorikshaw drivers. The specific prohibition is sought for in the stand notified near “RKM UPS, Muthana” coming within Thiruvananthapuram district. The petitioner contends that the said stand is specifically intended for the autorikshaws and that a vehicle of another description cannot be permitted to be

¶51

parked therein. The petitioners also rely on Ext.P4 judgment of a Division Bench of this Court which, according to the petitioners, as a general rule, directed parking of Motor Cab (Taxi) and autorikshaws in different places.

¶52

Primarily it has to be noticed that there

¶53

is no declaration of law in Ext.P4 judgment. Evidently, when the dispute arose with respect to parking of auto taxies and autorikshaws, in the aforesaid case, within the Perumbavoor Municipality, the learned Government Pleader on

¶54

WP(C).2335/14

¶55

¶56

instructions submitted that the parties were summoned for resolving the dispute and it has been agreed that two separate parking places would be allotted at the same location. In such circumstances, the Division Bench directed that the method adopted to resolve the dispute may be implemented. However, that cannot be considered to be a general direction to be followed in the case of the aforementioned two type of vehicles.

¶57

It is common knowledge that the State has acute problems of traffic congestion and many a time writ petitions have been filed before this Court for ascertainment of proper places by the local bodies so as to specify parking places by the Regional Transport Authorities and the Traffic Advisory Committees constituted under the Panchayat Raj Act.

¶58

Constraints of space and the clamour for parking vehicles in busy areas have been vexing

¶59

WP(C).2335/14

¶60

¶61

the Transport Authorities all over the State. Hence, in considering the issue of auto taxies and autorikshaws, what is to be looked into is the purpose which the vehicles serve. There can be no dispute that, but for the auto taxies having a better body and being run on four wheels, the description, the seating capacity and the charges are identical for both the vehicles. The hostility of the auto drivers stems from the fact that the passengers may prefer Motor cab (Taxi) rather than autorikshaws; thus putting their livelihood into peril; especially since auto taxies are granted State wide permits.

¶62

However, it is to be noticed that

¶63

providing of two stands in the same locality would not be feasible. The purpose of both the vehicles is operation as contract carriage vehicles carrying upto three passengers. The passenger would be free to chose the vehicle in

¶64

WP(C).2335/14

¶65

¶66

which he/she wants to travel. The very purpose of public transport system, is the service to the public, with emphasis on their convenience, and not merely the livelihood of the operators. It is only proper that respondents 5 and 6 are for the present, permitted to park in the particular auto stand and ply their vehicle from therein following the que system, along with autorikshaws. However, the Regional Transport Authority shall with the assistance of the Local Self Governing Institution (Chemaruthy Grama Panchayat) consider the grievance of the petitioners as also respondents 5 and 6 and if possible provide for an alternate solution. Petitioners as also respondents 5 and 6 shall appear before the Secretary of the 1^st respondent on 20.5.2014. The Regional Transport Authority shall take a decision within a period of two months there from. It is made clear that in the meanwhile respondents 5 and 6 should be permitted to park in the autorikshaw stand at

¶67

WP(C).2335/14

¶68

“RKM UPS, Muthana” wherein their permits allow them to park, and if complaint is received on any hindrance or obstruction caused, the 2^nd respondent shall ensure the safety and smooth operation of respondents 5 and 6.

¶69

Writ petition disposed of.

¶70

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge

¶71

Mrcs

Giridas v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Giridas v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

I.Jawahar Vs K.O.Poulose

Meera A.K. Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Ernakulam

Susha Vs the Secretary

Indian Coffee Board Workers Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Samuel Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Rajkumar.K Vs M/S.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited