Disposed

P.M.Saleema v. Circle Inspector of Police

Kerala HC18 Mar 2015WP(C)/8288/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition complaining of illegal autorikshaw parking obstructing his road and shop access. Court directed Traffic Respondent to act expeditiously on complaints received and take remedial steps.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to act expeditiously on Exts.P4 and P5 and take appropriate remedial steps regarding alleged illegal parking and obstruction.

P.M.Saleema Vs Circle Inspector of Police — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/27TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 8288 of 2015 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.M.SALEEM, AGED 48 YEARS

¶8

S/O.MEERAN, PONNAPPALA HOUSE, PALLARIMANGALAM.P.O KOTHAMANGALAM-686671.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN

¶10

SRI.V.R.RAJESH

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686691.

¶13

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE(TRAFFIC), KOTHAMANGALAM-686691.

¶14

3. KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, NO.155, KOTHAMANGALAM-686691 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

4. TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE, KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTHAMANGALAM-686691.

¶16

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.K. SHERIN R BY SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 8288 of 2015 (I)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE 3RD RESPPONDENT UNDER THE RTI ACT BEARING NO.C1-982/07 DATED: 04/11/2014 ALONG WITH THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶22

EXT.P2 PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE PARKING OF AUTORICKSHAWS AND CAUSING OBSTRUCTIONS

¶23

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED:05/11/2014 MADE TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶24

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION MADE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.1476/10 DATED :09/12/2014 ALONG WITH THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶25

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED:04/03/2015 MADE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY

PA TO JUDGE

Scl.

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 8288 of 2015

¶32

Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2015.

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, apart from perusing the records.

¶35

Briefly stated, the petitioner, a businessman having

¶36

a shop in readymade clothes, has a grievance that on the road where his shop is situated there has been an unabated activity of illegal autorikshaw parking. On that ground, when the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 complaint to the third respondent, it in turn forwarded the same to the second respondent along with Ext.P4 request for appropriate action concerning the menace of illegal parking. Since no action has been taken by the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner obtained Ext.P1 communication under the Right to Information Act. According to the said communication,

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 8288 of 2015

¶39

-2-

¶40

the respondent Municipality, contends the learned counsel, has designated particular parking place, which has not been used by the autorikshaws. According to him, the autorikshaws are parked indiscriminately along the road, causing severe obstruction, barring access to the shops including the petitioner's as it could be seen from Ext.P2 photographs. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that apart from Ext.P4, the petitioner himself has submitted Ext.P5 complaint before the second respondent.

¶41

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, has submitted that the second respondent is willing to take appropriate action based on Ext.P4 communication of respondent Municipality.

¶42

In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to act expeditiously on Exts.P4 and P5 and take appropriate

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 8288 of 2015

¶44

-3-

¶45

remedial steps regarding the alleged illegal parking problem

¶46

faced by the petitioner, as well as the denial of the access to the shops along the road. No order as to costs.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶49

Scl.

P.M.Saleema v. Circle Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Saleema v. 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

Kanichai Hotels (P) Limited Vs the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Sunil Kumar A.M Vs Thrissur Corporation

Abdul Azeez Vs Secretary Municipal Coporation,Kollam

S.Suresh Vs Sri.Antony Chacko

The Bishop Moore College Vs the State of Kerala

R.Parameswaran Vs the Corporation of Thrissur