Allowed

Dilip v. Pala Municipality

Kerala HC4 Jun 2015WP(C)/5054/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed proceedings denying a three-wheeler operator permission to park and pick passengers. The Court held that without a statutory limit on contra。ct carriages, authorities cannot impose such restrictions. The respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's request afresh.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings quashed; respondent directed to consider parking and passenger pickup request afresh.

Dilip Vs Pala Municipality — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/14TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 5054 of 2015 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

DILIP, S/O.SALIM KUMAR, NO.466, KALLIDUKKANACKAL HOUSE MUTHOLY, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. PALA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶11

PALA - 686 575.

¶12

2. THE CHAIRMAN, PALA MUNICIPALITY,

¶13

PALA - 686 575.

¶14

3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALA 686 575.

¶15

*ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED

¶16

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

¶17

*ADDL.R4. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOTTAYAM – 686 001.

¶18

*IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 3/3/2015 IN IA NO. 2996/2015.

¶19

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.A. SANJEETHA

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

...2/-

¶23

WP(C).No. 5054 of 2015 (F)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶26

EXT. P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 9/2/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶29

//TRUE COPY//

¶30

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶31

¶32

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 5054 of 2015

¶34

Dated this the 4^th day of June, 2015

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

Ext.P2 proceedings issued by the 2^nd respondent is under challenge.

¶37

The petitioner is the registered owner of an autorikshaw bearing No.KL 35 B/1189, which is having permit issued by the 3^rd respondent to operate on all routes in Kottayam district subject to condition that the vehicle shall not park or pick up passengers within the city. The petitioner alleges that he is driver by profession and he himself is operating the vehicle as self employment. In order to pick passengers from the town limit of Pala and also to park the vehicle near Kottaramattam bus stand, the petitioner moved an application before the 1^st respondent. Though the said request was considered by the committee, they declined to grant permission to park the vehicle near Kottaramattam bus stand on account of the objection from

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 5054 of 2015

¶39

..2..

¶40

some of the Standing Committee members. According to

¶41

the petitioner, mere objection from some of the Standing Committee members is not a ground to deny the request by the petitioner. It is in this context, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent municipality.

¶43

The learned Government Pleader submitted that permission was not granted to the petitioner on account of Ext.P2 proceedings issued by the standing committee.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting

¶45

my attention to Section 74(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which governs the grant of contract carriage permits, submitted that there is no notification issued by the Government limiting the number of autorikshaws in Pala.

¶46

Three wheelers are contract carriages. Therefore, without a notification issued by the Government limiting the number of autorikshaws within a

¶47

W.P.(C) No. 5054 of 2015

¶48

..3..

¶49

particular area, the motor vehicle authorities cannot impose a condition as made in Ext.P1. Though it is submitted that Ext.P1 was issued in the light of Ext.P2, the standing committee also does not have a power to impose such a restriction. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders call for an interference.

¶50

In the result, the writ petition is allowed.

¶51

Exts.P1 & P2 are quashed.

¶52

The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for parking his three wheeler near Kottaramattam bus stand and for permitting him to pick passengers from Pala Municipality. Formal orders to this effect shall be passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, if he chooses.

¶53

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶54

bka/-

Dilip v. Pala Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip v. Pala Municipality

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

M.J. Tyju Vs State of Kerala

K R Mohankumar Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Sumathy Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

Santhosh M.Paul Vs Kunnathunadu Grama Panchayath

Semeena.M.K. Vs the Kannur University

The Principal, Amritha Institute of Medical Science & Technology Vs the District Collector, Kozhikode