Disposed

Mohammed @ Bapputty v. the District Collector

Kerala HC30 May 2016WP(C)/933/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged illegal autorikshaw parking caused by a Panchayat license granted without mandatory consultation. The Court held that the license was unsustainable absent consultation and directed that future parking requires notice to petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of. Parking near petitioners prohibited until consultation and notice are issued. No costs awarded to or against parties.

Mohammed @ Bapputty Vs the District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | 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 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 933 of 2015 (N)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. MOHAMMED @ BAPPUTTY S/O.MAMMAD MUSALIYAR, MANACHITHODI, KUNNATH, PALLIKUNNU ALIPARAMBA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 357

¶8

2. MOIDUNNI, S/O.MAMMAD MUSALIYAR MANACHITHODI, KUNNATH, PALLIKUNNU ALIPARAMBA, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 357.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶12

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 322

¶13

3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679322.

¶14

4. THE ALIPARAMBA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALIPARAMBA, THOOTHA POST PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679322. ADDITIONAL R5 AND R6 IMPLEADED

¶15

ADDL. R5 RAMACHANDRAN K., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN, KALATHILTHODI, ALIPARAMBU P.O., ALIPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM.

¶16

ADDL. R6 MOHAMMED MUSTAFFA, KATTAKKADU HOUSE, KODAKKAPARABU, PALLIKKUNNU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.02.2016 IN I.A. NO.1158/2016

¶17

...2

¶18

WP(C).No. 933 of 2015 (N)

¶19

-2-

¶20

R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.MUHAMMED RAFEEQ ADDL R5 & R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶21

SRI.MANOJ P. KUNJACHAN

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No. 933 of 2015 (N)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶26

EXT.P1 -	TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF 1ST PETITIONER
EXT.P2 -	TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF 2ND PETITIONER
EXT.P3 -	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT
EXT.P4 -	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P5 -	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ALIPARAMU VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P6 -	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P7 -	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P8 -	TRUE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE ILLEGAL PARKING OF AUTO RICKSHAWS IN FRONT OF THE SHOP ROOMS OF THE PETITIONERS
EXT.P9 -	TRUE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE FOR EARMARKING PUBLIC LANDING AND HALTING PLACES
RESPONDENT ----------	(S)' EXHIBITS -------------

¶27

EXT.R5(A)	TRUE COPY OF TEMPORARY	PERMIT DATED 15.12.2014 GRANTED BY
	THE 4TH RESPONDENT

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

JJJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 933 of 2015 (N)

¶33

Dated this the 30^th day of May, 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The petitioners are aggrieved with the parking of autorikshaws in front of their building on the public road; which is alleged to be illegal. The documents produced by the petitioners indicate that the 4^th respondent, under whose jurisdiction the petitioners' building situates, has not granted any license. The additional 5^th and 6^th respondents, who are individuals representing the autorikshaw drivers, has filed a counter affidavit producing Ext.R5(a) dated 15.12.2014, wherein the Panchayat has granted a license to park three authorikshaws in the said locality.

¶36

W.P.(C) No.933/2015

¶37

-2-

¶38

The learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayath admits that Ext.R5(a) is one granted by the Panchayath.

¶39

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the Panchayath cannot grant such a license for parking under the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Landing Places, Halting Places, Cart Stands and Other Vehicle Stands) Rules, 1995 (for brevity 'Rules'). Rule 6 provides that a road or land abutting the road shall not ordinarily be declared as public halting place or cart stand. The power conferred on the Panchayath is only to provide such parking spaces in particular cases; on consultation with the authority with whom the road is vested.

¶40

W.P.(C) No.933/2015

¶41

-3-

¶42

In such circumstances, the consultation would be required with the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'Act'), as per Section 117 of the Act read with Section 344 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. There is no averment, by either the 4^th respondent or the additional respondents, that such a consultation was carried on.

¶43

In any event, the learned Counsel for the Panchayath and the additional respondents submit that the order has been revoked by a separate communication, based on the interim order issued by this Court. Further, since no consultation has been carried on, Ext.R5(a) cannot be sustained. The additional respondents 5 and 6 also only seek for a consideration by the Panchayath for a suitable parking space. If the Panchayath intends to reiterate Ext.R5(a),

¶44

W.P.(C) No.933/2015

¶45

-4-

¶46

it is made clear that the same shall be only after the consultation as noticed herein above and after issuing notice to the petitioners and respondents 5 to 6. As of now, the parking cannot be carried on in the premises near to the petitioners.

¶47

The writ petition would stand disposed of. No Costs.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶50

jjj 31/5/16

Mohammed @ Bapputty v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed @ Bapputty v. the District Collector

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

Namitha Bhas Vs the M.G.University

M/S.Three Star Granites Vs the Chairman, Seiac, Kerala

P.M.Elias Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Thomas Vs Local Level Monitoring Committee

James Vs the Local Level Monitoring Committee

Pattambi Grama Panchayath Vs State of Kerala