The Kerala High Court reviewed an order regarding the operation of heavy trucks on narrow roads. Finding that the original judgment was based on an agreement and the petitioner offered to widen the road, the court found no error to warrant review and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1940
RP.No. 290 of 2018 IN WA. 611/2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 611/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 23-03-2016
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN WA
SOUTHERN TRANSPORT COMPANY 7/151,VIDAKUZHA TEMPLE ROAD, THAIKATTUKARA P.O, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM 683106 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING -PARTNEER P.N CHANDRAN
BY ADVS.SRI.G.SHRIKUMAR (SR.) SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WA:
1. BALAKRISHNA MENON S/O. K.G SREEDHARA PANICKER MINNU'S,K.M NO.IX/586A, VIDAKUZHA, THAIKATTUKARA P.O, KALAMASSERY,ERNAKULAM 683104 2. G. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI S/O. DAMODARAN PILLAI, SREENILAYAM, VIDAKUZHA, THAIKATTUKARA P.O, KALAMASSERRY, ERNAKULAM 683104 3. T.R MOHANDAS S/O. DAMODARAN PILLAI, PUNNAMADATHIL, VIDAKUZHA, THAIKATTUKARA P.O, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM 683104 4. JAYAN R S/O. K.S RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, RAMANILAYAM, VIDAKUZHA, THAIKATTUKARA P.O, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM 683104
5. SASIDHARAN PALIYATH S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, PALIYATH HOUSE, VIDAKUZHA, THAIKATTUKARA P.O, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM-683104
6. BABY JOSEPH
7. C.K YOGESH
8. STATE OF KERALA
9. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682020.
10. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682020.
11. KALAMASSERRY MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALAMASSERRY, ERNAKULAM 683106
12. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERRY CIRCLE, KALAMASSERRY, ERNAKULAM 683106
13. SOUTHERN TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES FEDERATION (CITU), REGISTRATION NO.7/34/2001, THAIKATTUKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM 683106 REPRESENTED BY ITS UNIT SECRETARY, BABU A.K
14. AJAYAKUMAR P.K., S/O O.V.KUNHIRAMAN, PUTHENVEETTIL, KUSUMAGIRI P.O., KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682030.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No. 290 of 2018 IN WA. 611/2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC NO.34089/2016 DT.25.10.2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC NO.34962/2016 DT.7.11.2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF HTE ORDER IN WPC NO.35994/2016 DTE. 17.11.2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:
EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 35994/2016 DATED 23.03.2018. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WOPC 24947/2016 DATED 05.08.2016. EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMNET IN WPC NO.34962/2016 DATED 02.04.2018.
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE & P.SOMARAJAN, JJ
in W.A.No.611 of 2016
ORDER
SHAFFIQUE, J.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
the judgment requires to be reviewed. It is further submitted that the people in the locality are obstructing movement of
R.P.No.290 of 2018
-2-
vehicles having loading capacity of more than 10 tonnes on account of which the petitioner approached Court for police protection and the same came to be rejected.
“3. The Division Bench by Ext.P3 judgment recorded the undertaking of the petitioner and directed that alternative arrangements for widening of road or to ply vehicles with lesser capacity shall be explored within five months. The petitioner was permitted to operate the vehicles of this choice in the five months and then implementation of the G.O was also directed. The petitioner submits that such an undertaking was given only in the context of Ext.P1 G.O being in force. As of now, Ext.P1 G.O is not in force, is the argument. We have to notice that the petitioner by the appeal preempted the consideration of the G.O by the learned Single Judge. In the appeal a definite undertaking was made which is binding on them. We also notice that the respondents in the appeal had not built up their case merely and solely on the G.O. They raised grounds of inconvenience caused to the residents, especially the danger apprehended to the children who daily commute in the narrow roads where huge trucks were plied. The
R.P.No.290 of 2018 -3-
petitioner cannot resile from the undertaking and if at all, would have to seek for a review of the judgment. Without that the petitioner cannot wriggle out of the undertaking.”
following manner:
“6. Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to grant any police protection for transportation of vehicles having capacity of more than 10 tonnes. But, however, this does not mean that there can be physical obstruction caused by any person. If vehicles having capacity of more than 10 tonnes is plies, then the residents can report to the police and they shall take appropriate action to restrict plying only of vehicles with less than 10 tonnes capacity. Any report of a criminal act, by any of the party respondents, if informed to the police, the police shall take appropriate action. There shall be no obstruction caused to the transportation of vehicles below the limit; as permitted by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment and if any such obstruction is caused, the police shall see to it that such obstruction is averted. The Writ Petition is closed with the above observations.”
whether there is any error apparent on the face of record. Perusal of judgment would show that the judgment was passed on an agreement between the parties and the petitioner has offered to take necessary steps to widen the road within a specified period. That was a case in which certain persons in the
R.P.No.290 of 2018
-4-
locality had approached this Court to implement the Government Order. The Government Order had been issued under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Despite the order of stay, nothing has happened so far and the main object of the Government Order was to ensure that heavy vehicles having large loading capacity shall not ply through narrow roads of the State. It is pointed out that the width of the road in the relevant
area is 3.5 metres as stated by the Advocate Commissioner during the relevant time and it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the road had been widened to 4.5 metres.
“337. Restrictions on use of truck-trailer combinations:- (1) A truck-trailer combination shall not be used -
(a) on ghat road;
(b) On road of less than six metres and seventy centimetres width generally, except for small stretches of road with not less than three metres and sixty-five centimetres carriages way and few narrow bridges.”
Taking into account the aforesaid factual situation, we do
R.P.No.290 of 2018
-5-
not find any error in the judgment passed by this Court warranting review of the same. If at all the Government decide to take a different view in the matter, it will be open for the petitioner to take advantage of the same. With the above clarification, this review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE
kp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether error apparent on the face of the record exists to warrant a review of the order disposing of the writ petition.
Southern Transport Company
Balakrishna Menon
G. Raveendran Pillai
T.R Mohandas
Jayan R
Sasidharan Paliyath
A.M. Shaffique
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
