Disposed

Sumathy v. the Circle Inspector of Police

Kerala HC3 Jun 2015WP(C)/15344/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners approached the court alleging unauthorized parking of autorikshaws by the 4th respondent obstructed their shop's ingress and egress. The court directed the first respondent to consider the petition filed by the 1st petitioner and pass appropriate orders within one month, adhering to a previous judgment.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the Ext.P7 petition of the petitioner by affording an opportunity of hearing within one month.

Sumathy Vs the Circle Inspector of Police — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2015/13TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No.15344 of 2015 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER'S:

¶7

1. SUMATHY,W/O.BALAKRISHNAN,BANK ROAD, ALATHUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

2. BALAKRISHNAN P.S,S/O.SANKARAN EZHUTHACHAN, SRUTHI,BANK ROAD,ALATHUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.P.R.VENKETESH

¶10

RESPONDENT'S:

¶11

1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALATHUR.

¶12

2. ALATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALATHUR-678 542.

¶13

3. TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE, ALATHUR-678 542.

¶14

4. AUTO DRIVERS' UNION,BANK ROAD,ALATHUR-678 542, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

R1 & R3BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No.15344 of 2015 (P)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE POLICE STATION IN 11.12.2009.

¶22

P2TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED ON 14.2.2011 BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ALATHUR BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

P3TRUE COPY OF THE CONCILIATION TERMS DATED 15.2.2011 BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶24

P4TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 5.6.2012 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR, ALATHUR POLICE STATION BY THE PETITIONERS.

¶25

P5TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 5.6.2012 ISSUED FROM THE POLICE STATION TO THE PETITIONERS.

¶26

P6TRUE COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE POLICE IN MARCH 2013.

¶27

P7TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 6.8.2014 BEFORE THE ALATHUR POLICE STATION BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND HER DAUGHTER.

¶28

P8TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 7.8.2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ALATHUR POLICE STATION.

¶29

P9TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.10(1) DATED 30.6.2008 OF THE ALATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶30

P10TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.12.2014 IN W.P[C]NO.31980/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶31

P11PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PARKING OF THE VEHICLES IN FRONT OF THE PETITIONERS' SHOP.

¶32

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶38

W.P.(C) No.15344 of 2015

¶39

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2015.

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

Alleging inaction on the part of the first respondent in preventing the alleged unauthorised parking of autorikshaws in front of the petitioners' commercial complex, the petitioners have come up before this Court.

¶42

The petitioners allege that they are now facing serious inconvenience from the 4^th respondent whose members are parking their autorikshaws right in front of the petitioners' shopping complex. As a result, the customers cannot come to the shop. The petitioners allege that some of the shops have been rented out and the tenants are also facing similar problem. It seriously affects the business prospects of the petitioners and his tenants; it is alleged. The vehicles are parked in such a way that it totally obstructs the ingress and egress of the shops housed in the petitioners' building complex. In fact this is a problem that has been going on for

¶43

W.P.(C) No.15344 of 2015

¶44

-2-

¶45

the past more than 5 to 6 years ever since the building was constructed; it is alleged. The petitioners point out that there are many other convenient places in the vicinity wherein the vehicles could be parked. However, the vehicles are parked in front of the petitioners' commercial complex. It is further alleged that in a similar situation, this Court as per judgment dated 9.12.2014 in W.P.(C) No.31980/2014 has directed the Traffic Regulatory Committee to take a decision. In the meanwhile, the illegal parking of autorikshaws in in front of the petitioners' shop has to be removed by the first respondent.

¶46

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader in the matter.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioners confined his argument to the limited prayer for an early consideration of Ext.P7 petition by the first respondent in the light of Ext.P9 passed by the Traffic Regulatory Committee and Ext.P10 judgment of this Court which rendered by in a similar case.

¶48

W.P.(C) No.15344 of 2015

¶49

-3-

¶50

Considering the nature of submissions and the nature of relief sought for, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 petition in the light of Exts.P9 and P10, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To facilitate an early action, it shall be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition, a copy of this judgment and a copy of Exts.P9 and P10 before the first respondent at the earliest.

¶51

Sd/A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶52

Scl.

Sumathy v. the Circle Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumathy v. the Circle Inspector of Police

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

Francis Vs the State of Kerala

T.P.Mohammed Vs the Valavannur Grama Panchayat

Memi Granites Pvt.Ltd. Vs Naduvil Grama Panchayat

M.J. Tyju Vs State of Kerala

K R Mohankumar Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Naseer C Vs the Secretary, Rta, Malappuram