Allowed

M.a.Kharim v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC18 Aug 2016WP(C)/20718/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that autorickshaws were parked in an area not earmarked by the Panchayat, butating authorized stands. The court directed statutory authorities to take urgent action on the petitioner's complaints after providing a hearing opportunity to respondent unions within one month and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's complaints and take a decision within one month after providing an opportunity of hearing to respondents 3 and 4 and any other interested persons.

M.a.Kharim Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/27TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20718 of 2016 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M.A. KHARIM, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED HANEEFA,

¶8

DESERT AIR TRAVELS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ALUMOODU JUNCTION, KANIYAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANGALAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 001.

¶12

2. ANDOORKONAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANIYAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

***** ADDL. R3 & R4 IMPLEADED

¶14

3. SAJEED, CONVENOR, AUTO THOZHILALY UNION INTUC, ALUMOODU JUNCTION, KANIYAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

4. SALIM, SECRETARY, AUTO THOZHILALY UNION INTUC, ALUMOODU JUNCTION, KANIYAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

*** ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04/07/2016 IN I.A. NO.10710/2016.**

¶17

R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.S. SHEEJA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR. ADDL. R3 & R4 BY ADVS. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G., SRI.G.P.SHINOD, SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN, SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

rs.

¶20

WP(C).No. 20718 of 2016 (L)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶23

P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGE, REGISTRATION OF FIRM. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19-01-2016 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21-01-2016 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE UNAUTHORIZED PARKING CAUSING OBSTRUCTION. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION OF THE PETITIONER.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶29

W.P.(C). No. 20718 of 2016

¶30

Dated this the 18^th day of August, 2016

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Petitioner is running an Air Travel Service and Communication in the name and style “Desert Air Travels and Communications” near Alumoodu Junction, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, there is an unauthorized parking of autorickshaws in front of the petitioner's establishment causing obstruction and affecting the ingress and egress to the shop room. In that regard petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 application before the Sub Inspector of Police and Ext.P4 before the Panchayat. In spite of the earnest efforts of the petitioner, no action is initiated by the said authorities to eliminate the nuisance occurred to by the petitioner. It is in this background, this writ petition is filed.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader, learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat, learned counsel appearing for additional

¶34

W.P.(C). No.20718 of 2016

¶35

¶36

respondents 3 and 4, who are office bearers of an autorickshaw Union and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶37

The question to be considered is whether respondents 3 and 4 or their members have any legal right to park the autorickshaws in front of the the building occupied by the petitioner ? Petitioner has projected a case that, the place at which the autorickshaws are parked are not a notified autorickshaw parking stand and therefore, the parking of the autorickshaws in front of the shop totally affecting the ingress and egress to the petitioner's office is arbitrary and illegal. It is in this background, petitioner has filed Exts.P3 and P4 before the statutory authorities, however, the same were not given due attention by the respective authorities.

¶38

4.Learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat submitted that, even though the Panchayat has authorized autorickshaw parking stand nearby to the present place, where autorickshaws are parked, the autorickshaw owners/drivers are not utilising the same and in spite of the direction issued

¶39

W.P.(C). No.20718 of 2016

¶40

¶41

by the Panchayat, the same are ignored by the autorickshaw owners. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that, necessary communications were issued to the Police also to ensure that the autorickshaws parked by the side of the road and in front of the office of the petitioner is to be removed, however, no action is also taken by the Police.

¶42

Learned Senior Government Pleader on instructions submitted that, Traffic Police is deputed in the area to regulate the traffic from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. However, learned counsel for additional respondents 3 and 4 has submitted that, there is a signboard provided near to the place, where the autorickshaws are parked now making 'auto stand'. Therefore, it is an approved autorickshaw stand of the local authority.

¶43

Taking into account the respective submissions made across the Bar and reckoning the circumstances from the documents produced, I am satisfied that, the autorickshaws are parked not in an area earmarked by the Panchayat for the purpose of parking autorickshaws. Panchayat also made

¶44

W.P.(C). No.20718 of 2016

¶45

¶46

clear, there are earmarked autorickshaw stands near to the present place of parking, objected to by the petitioner, which is however not utilized by the autorickshaw owners. That apart it is also submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat that, in spite of directives or communication forwarded to the Police to remove the autorickshaws from the present place of parking, same is ignored by the Police also.

¶47

In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that, the illegal parking of the autorickshaws cannot be permitted in an area ignoring a nearby area specifically provided for the purpose. Therefore, in view of Exts.P3 and P4 submitted by the petitioner, serious attention by the respective statutory authority, shall be adverted to, since it is an admitted fact that the autorickshaws belonging to respondents 3 and 4 and their members are being parked in the present location ignoring earmarked area, after providing necessary opportunity to the respective parties. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents shall take urgent and immediate action on the basis of Exts.P3 and P4.

¶48

W.P.(C). No.20718 of 2016

¶49

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought my attention to the order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission dated 21.3.2016, whereby there was a direction to the Police in a petition filed by the petitioner herein to remove the autorickshaws and take action against the drivers, who park autorickshaws in front of the petitioner's establishment.

¶51

Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, there will be a direction to the respondents to consider Exts.P3 and P4 complaints submitted by the petitioner and take a decision on the same in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to respondents 3 and 4 and any other interested or affected persons, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶53

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶54

19.08.2016

¶55

smv

M.a.Kharim v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.a.Kharim v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

A.Jerone Vs State of Kerala

N.K.Mohanan Vs the Joint Registrar

John Vs the Assistant Registrar Arbitration and Execution Office

A.K.Thajudeen Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Joseph Thomas Vs Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Vitty Thomas Vs the Secretary