Dismissed

Bharathi.S.Poduval v. Corporation of Cochin

Kerala HC3 Feb 2016WP(C)/35270/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged heavy vehicle diversion on a bridge due to metro construction, relying on past judgments to claim a right for restraint. The Court held such judgments do not create rights for third parties and dismissed the petition, noting traffic regulation is a matter of administrative discretion.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, holding that residents cannot claim rights based on prior judgments and traffic regulation remains administrative discretion.

Bharathi.S.Poduval Vs Corporation of Cochin — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/14TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 35270 of 2015 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. BHARATHI.S.PODUVAL, NO.29, CC 28/284, 3RD CROS, GIRINAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM - 680 020.

¶8

2. LAKSHMI N.MENON, "LAKSHMI", NO.32, 3RD CROSS, GIRINAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM - 682 020.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, PARK AVENUE, COCHIN 682 011.

¶12

2. THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN - 682 020.

¶13

3. THE KOCHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 8TH FLOOR, REVENEU TOWERS, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

¶14

4. THE CITY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM, REVENUE TOWERS, PARK AVENUE, COCHIN - 682 011.

¶15

5. THE DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., REPRESETNED BY CEO, KOCHI METRO RAIL PROJECT, DMRC OFFICE, GIRI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM 682 020.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI,SC BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED, R3 BY SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SC R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR R5 BY SRI.K.ANAND (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADV. SMT.LATHA ANAND, SC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-01-2016, THE COURT ON 03-02-2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

mbr/

¶19

WP(C).No. 35270 of 2015 (G)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶22

P1TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP NO.3011/90.

¶23

P2TRUE COPY OF JUEGMENT IN OS NO.268/90.

¶24

P3PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON 10.11.2015.

¶25

P4PHOTGRAPH TAKEN ON 17.11.2015.

¶26

P4(A)- PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON 17.11.2015.

¶27

P5TRUE COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE DATED 27.3.2015.

¶28

P6TRUE COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN CCC 890/15.

¶29

P7TRUE COPY OF REPLY AFFIDAVIT IN CCC 890/15.

¶30

P8TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATD 1.10.15 IN CCC 890/15.

¶31

P9TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF GCDA IN WP 24152/15.

¶32

P10TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF KMRL IN WP 24152/15.

¶33

P11TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF THE POLICE IN WP 34152/15.

¶34

P12TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON 17.11.2015.

¶35

P12(A)- TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON 17/11/15.

¶36

P14TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH.

¶37

P14(A)- TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH.

¶38

P14(B)- TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH.

¶39

P15TRUE COPY OF NEW REPORT DATED 22.12.2015.

¶40

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶45

------------------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No. 35270 of 2015

¶46

------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 03^rd day of February, 2016

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

This writ petition is filed by the residents of the

¶49

Giri Nagar Housing colony, aggrieved by diversion of heavy vehicles through the bridge connecting Giri Nagar

¶50

3^rd Cross Road to Panampilly Nagar 1^st street.

¶51

The petitioners rely upon the judgment of this

¶52

Court in O.P. No.3011/1990 and the judgment of the

¶53

Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, in O.S. No.268/1990 to

¶54

substantiate the contentions.

¶55

The learned counsel for the petitioners would argue

¶56

that the diversion of the traffic is causing nuisance to the

¶57

residents and the respondents have no right to divert heavy

¶58

vehicles through the above bridge.

¶59

W.P.(C).No. 35270 of 2015 -2-

¶60

On the other hand, the learned Senior counsel for

¶61

the 2^nd respondent and the learned counsel for the G.C.D.A.

¶62

would submit that the diversion is necessary on account of

¶63

ongoing work of metro and once the work relating to the project is completed, there may not be any requirement to

¶64

divert traffic through the aforesaid bridge.

¶65

O.P. No.3011/1990 was filed in the year 1980. This

¶66

was filed against diverting vehicle traffic through Perandoor Canal road. In the above original petition, the Cochin Corporation took stand that they will take steps to restrain the movement of heavy vehicles. Recording the above submission, the writ petition was disposed of.

¶67

O.S. No. 268/1990 was filed by one Varghese and

¶68

others against the Cochin Corporation G.C.D.A. The

¶69

Principal Munsiff Court ordered as follows :

¶70

W.P.(C).No. 35270 of 2015 -3-

¶71

“In the result, the defendants are restrained from diverting traffic or a section of the traffic in the Sahodaran Ayyappan Road through the disputed bridge and the interior roads available in the Girinagar and Panampilly Nagar. It is made clear that there is no prohibition to allow light vehicles like cars, two wheelers, autorickshaw etc., to negotiate this disputed bridge and the roads. The defendants can provide permanent provision to prevent heavy traffic through the bridge by providing any device which is suitable to the disputed premises.”

¶72

The petitioner's essential argument is that based on the aforesaid binding judgments, the respondents shall be restrained from diverting heavy vehicles.

¶73

The judgment of the Principal Munsiff Court or this Court will not create a right in itself to any third party. The judgments would bind only parties to the litigation. No one can claim a right based on a judgment. If there is

¶74

W.P.(C).No. 35270 of 2015

¶75

-4-

¶76

any violation of the judgment, the remedy of the aggrieved

¶77

is to enforce the judgment in the manner provided under

¶78

the law. Therefore, arguments based on the judgments are unsustainable.

¶79

It is to be noted on account of ongoing work related to the metro project, the diversion is effected. It is the wisdom of the public officials to decide in what manner, the traffic has to be regulated. The court cannot interfere with such matters, unless such decisions are arbitrary or

¶80

vitiated on account of malafides.

¶81

In the light of above, there is no merit in this writ

¶82

petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶83

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶84

bpr

Bharathi.S.Poduval v. Corporation of Cochin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharathi.S.Poduval v. Corporation of Cochin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.K.Rajendran Vs Director,Kirtads

Official Receiver Vs Special Tahsildar

Suresh Kumar.G.K. Vs Rajamma

Shaji Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Binoy Vs Executive Engineer (Civil)

Sunitha Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvananthapuram