Dismissed

Vineesh K.M. v. Ayanchery Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC21 Nov 2016WP(C)/23279/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Ayyanchery Grama Panchayat's prohibition of auto-rickshaws without stickers and denial of parking to petitioners residing outside the Panchayat limits. The Court held such prohibitions illegal and directed the Panchayat to reconsider applications without residence restrictions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; the Panchayat directed to consider applications from petitioners 1 and 3 afresh within three weeks. No costs.

Vineesh K.M. Vs Ayanchery Grama Panchayath — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/30TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 23279 of 2015 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1. VINEESH K.M., S/O. POKKU K.M., AGED 32 YEARS, KERALANDI MITHAL HOUSE, KOTTAPILLY POST, VALIYAPPILLY (VIA), VADAKARA- 673 542.

¶8

2. MANULAL K., S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 20 YEARS, PUNATHIKANDI HOUSE, AYANCHERY P.O., THIRUVALORE (VIA), VADAKARA- 673 541.

¶9

3. RAJEEVAN T.T., S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 41 YEARS, THEKKINA THARAMEL HOUSE, KOTTAPILLY POST, VALIYAPPILLY (VIA), VADAKARA- 673 542.

¶10

4. RATHEESH C.M., S/O. GOPALAN, AGED 29 YEARS, CHERKOTTU MITHAL HOUSE, AYANCHERY POST, THIRUVALORE (VIA), VADAKARA- 673 541.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶13

1. AYYANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATHU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAMERY P.O., AYYANCHERY, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 542.

¶14

2. CHAIRMAN, CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE/PRESIDENT, AYYANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATHU, KADAMERY P.O., AYYANCHERY, VADAKARA TALUK, PIN- 673 542.

¶15

3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), VADAKARA, KOZHIKOD DISTRICT- 673 101.

¶16

4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKARA POLICE STATION, VADAKARA, KOZHIKOD DISTRICT, PIN- 673 101.

¶17

..2/-

¶18

..2..

¶19

WP(C).No. 23279 of 2015 (H)

¶20

5. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, VADAKARA, KOZHIKOD DISTRICT- 673 101.

¶21

R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.B.KRISHNAN

¶22

SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY

¶23

R3 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. VINEETHA HARIRAJ

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

Msd.

¶26

WP(C).No. 23279 of 2015 (H)

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶29

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT TO THE VEHICLE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER NO. KL-18/H-823.

¶30

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR STICKER TO THE AUTO OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶31

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶32

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT TO THE VEHICLE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER KL-18/N-4085.

¶33

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR STICKER TO THE AUTO OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶34

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶35

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT TO THE VEHICLE OF THE 3RD PETITION KL-18/G-72.

¶36

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR STICKER TO THE AUTO OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.

¶37

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.

¶38

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT TO THE VEHICLE OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.

¶39

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR STICKER TO THE AUTO OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.

¶40

EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 4TH PETITIONER.

¶41

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶42

EXHIBIT R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION IN THE MEETING HELD ON 06.08.2008.

¶43

WP(C).No. 23279 of 2015 (H)

¶44

EXHIBIT R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMMITTEE FROM 29.08.2008 TO 21.10.2008.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶49

W.P.(C) No. 23279 of 2015 (H)

¶50

Dated: 21^st November, 2016

¶51

J U D G M E N T

¶52

The petitioners were aggrieved with the prohibition in plying auto-rickshaws within the 1^st respondent Panchayat without stickers issued from the local authority and the denial of providing parking space within the jurisdiction of the 1^st respondent Panchayat. The grievance survives only as against the 1^st and 3^rd petitioners, since the other two have already been granted parking space and stickers.

¶53

The petitioners rely on a number of decisions of this Court in Rajesh K.R. v. Bharananganam Grama Panchayath - 2013 (1) KHC 172 , Purushu M.P. and others v. Regional Transport Officer, Vatakara - 2015 (3) KHC 229 and Sunilkumar E.K.

¶54

W.P.(C) No. 23279/2015

¶55

-2-

¶56

and others v. State of Kerala - 2015 (3) KHC 230 . The respondent Panchayat relies on Sadasivan and others v. State of Kerala - 2016 (3) KHC 632 .

¶57

The petitioners contend that their applications for plying vehicles within the Panchayat area has been declined only for reason of their residence being situated outside the jurisdiction of the Panchayat. They rely on the decision in Sunilkumar E.K. (supra), which specifically considered the issue of refusal of permits for persons residing outside the Corporation limit, which was found to be unconstitutional.

¶58

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat, however, relying on the decision in Sadasivan (supra) contends that the Panchayat sources its power from Section 166 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ('Act' for short) and the Panchayat, who is allotting the parking spaces, as per Schedule III of the

¶59

W.P.(C) No. 23279/2015

¶60

-3-

¶61

Act, has to be conceded the Authority to make regulation of such activity.

¶62

Sadasivan (supra) was a case in which the Panchayat had restricted the owners of taxis from parking more than one taxi in the parking space allotted by the Panchayat. The challenge raised by the owners, who had more than one vehicle, was rejected by this Court, finding that the regulation made is perfectly in order and that the petitioners have no statutory right to insist that they are entitled to park more vehicles in the area in question, against the regulatory measures.

¶63

In the present case a totally different issue arises. The petitioners are aggrieved by the two actions/omissions of the Panchayat; one, the prohibition imposed on the auto-rickshaws without stickers, issued by the Panchayat, from operating within the limits of the Panchayat. The second grievance is with respect to

¶64

W.P.(C) No. 23279/2015

¶65

-4-

¶66

not allotting a parking space, as provided by the Regional Transport Authority.

¶67

With respect to the first grievance; there can be no prohibition imposed by the Panchayat prohibiting the operation of auto-rickshaws, which do not have stickers issued by the Panchayat, within the Panchayat limits. It cannot be said that a person commencing journey from the nearby Panchayat has to board a different auto-rickshaw with a sticker on entering the precincts of the respondent Panchayat. The prohibition has to be found to be illegal.

¶68

The further grievance is with respect to the non allotting of parking spaces. It has been categorically held in the decisions in Purushu M.P. and Sunilkumar E.K. (supra) that there can be no such prohibition by the Panchayat.

¶69

W.P.(C) No. 23279/2015

¶70

-5-

¶71

In such circumstance, the respondent Panchayat has to consider the applications of petitioners 1 and 3 afresh. It is made clear that the mere existence of their residence outside the Panchayat area cannot be a reason for denying them the parking spaces. The writ petition, hence, is disposed of without any observation on merits as to the other factors, leaving open the Panchayat to consider the same, in accordance with law, after issuing notice to petitioners 1 and 3, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. No Costs.

¶72

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶73

jjj 21/11/16

Vineesh K.M. v. Ayanchery Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineesh K.M. v. Ayanchery Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.P.Joseph Vs Mathai

Rana Sthuthi Vs Corporation of Kozhikode

Pandalam Block Panchayath Vs State of Kerala

Fr.Geroge Puthenparambil Vs Ettumanoor Grama Panchayath

Sreedharan M. Vs the Ajanur Grama Panchayath

K.Padmanabhan Nair Vs Secretary,Corporation of Kozhikode