Disposed

Muhammed Shihas v. Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC13 Jun 2017WP(C)/4477/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court addressed a writ petition regarding obstruction of a shop's ingress and egress due to autorickshaw parking. The Court found the parking was not illegal based on Traffic Regulatory Committee decisions but held that the unbroken line of vehicles obstructed the shopping complex's frontage. It directed the Panchayat and RTO to reconsider the issue.

What did the court decide?

Closed; No costs. Directed that R2 and R3 shall jointly convene a meeting and make suggestions to the Regional Transport Authority.

Muhammed Shihas Vs Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/23RD JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 4477 of 2017 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

MUHAMMED SHIHAS T.K, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. HUSSAIN, THOTTUKATTIL HOUSE, AMAYOOR P.O., PATTAMBI VIA, PALAKKAD -679 303.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 303.

¶11

2. KOPPAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PULASSERY P.O., KOPPAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 307.

¶12

3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (TRAFFIC), PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 303.

¶13

4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 303.

¶14

ADDITIONAL R5 IMPLEADED

¶15

5. N.P.SHAHUL HAMEED, S/O. HAMSA, AGED 36 YEARS, AUTO DRIVER, RESIDING AT NHAROTH PARAMBIL HOUSE, VILAYUR, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 309.

¶16

ADDITIONAL R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15.03.2017 IN I.A.NO. 4141 OF 2017.

¶17

R1, R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RAVI KRISHNAN R2 BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

¶18

SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.SAJU JOHN SRI.V.VARGHESE SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA SRI.S.DEEPAK ADDL.R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 4477 of 2017 (H)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE OF THE SHOP ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION, DATED 30/01/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT NO. 1, 2 AND 3.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PARKING OF AUTO RICKSHAWS IN FRONTS OF THE PETITIONER'S SHOP.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶27

EXHIBIT R5(A): MINUTES OF A MEETING HELD ON 24.11.2014 IN THE PANCHAYATH CONFERENCE HALL, KOPPAM.

¶28

EXHIBIT R5(B): MINUTES OF TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE HELD ON 27.11.2014 IN THE KOPPAM PANCHAYATH HALL.

¶29

EXHIBIT R5(C): MINUTES OF TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 02.12.2014 IN KOPPAM PANCHAYATH OFFICE.

¶30

EXHIBIT R5(D): MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE HELD ON 18.12.2014 IN KOPPAM PANCHAYATH COMMUNITY HALL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

K. Vinod Chandran, J

W.P.(C).No.4477 of 2017-H

¶37

¶38

Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2017

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The petitioner is aggrieved with the obstruction caused

¶41

to the ingress and egress into the petitioner's shop by the autorickshaws parked in front of the shopping complex, that too on the side of the State Highway. The petitioner contends that the autorickshaws cause obstruction to ingress and egress and also to the traffic, resulting in constant traffic jam in front of the shop. The petitioner seeks for shifting of the autorickshaw stand and also removal of obstruction occasioned by the illegal parking.

¶42

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Panchayat submits that the Traffic Regulatory Committee had decided on such parking after consultation with the Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithy, Chamber of Commerce, Autorickshaw Drivers' Union and other stakeholders. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the Panchayat that on installing traffic lights at the junction, the autorickshaws were

¶43

WP(C) No.4477 of 2017

¶44

¶45

directed to park on the left side of the four roads leading to the junction. This was to facilitate free left turn and to avoid traffic jam due to the autorickshaws taking a “U” turn on the main roads.

¶46

The learned Counsel appearing for the additional 5^th respondent has also produced the minutes of the Traffic Regulatory Committee introducing various measures to avoid traffic block in the area.

¶47

In the totality of the circumstances as put forward by the Panchayat, this Court is not inclined to agree with the petitioner that the parking is illegal. No obstruction is also caused to the ingress and egress into the petitioner's shop room by the autorickshaws parked in front of the petitioner's shop. The autorickshaws, as seen from the photographs produced, are seen parked without obstructing access of individual consumers to the shopping complex. Any person could walk between the vehicles parked.

¶48

However, it is to be noticed that the entire frontage of the shopping complex is blocked by the autorickshaws parked in an unbroken line. This necessarily obstructs the parking of vehicles in

¶49

WP(C) No.4477 of 2017

¶50

¶51

front of the shopping complex. The area of open space, left in front of the shopping complex, is in accordance with the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 so as to avoid parking of vehicles, of customers coming to the shopping complex, on the road side. The open space is insisted inter alia to provide parking of vehicles, coming to the shopping complex. This cannot be fully obstructed by parking of autorickshaws. In such circumstance, it is a fit case where the Panchayat should reconsider the issue after hearing the stakeholders. The 2^nd respondent-Panchayat and the 3^rd respondent shall jointly convene a meeting and make suggestions to the Regional Transport Authority.

¶52

With the above observation, the writ petition would stand closed. No costs.

¶53

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶54

vku/-

¶55

[ true copy ]

Muhammed Shihas v. Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Shihas v. Regional Transport Officer

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

Cheruthazham Panchayath Vs C.M.Damodaran

Selva Bricks Vs the Secretary, Karassery Grama Panchayat

Syed M.A and Another Vs Kottappady Grama Panchayath

Poyyil Bhaskaran Vs Valapattanam Grama Panchayat and Ors.

K.T.Mohammed Kutty Vs Ramanattukara Grama Panchayat

Benny Joseph and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others