Remanded

M.I.Francis v. the District Collector

Kerala HC3 Jul 2019WP(C)/40898/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged respondentAuthorities' inactionin operating a pre-paid Autorickshaw Counter at Alappuzha Bus Stand. Court directed Police Chief, Transport Officer, and Municipality to start operations within three months after numbering the existing building.

What did the court decide?

The respondents 3 to 5 directed to take necessary steps to start functioning of pre-paid Autorickshaw Counter at K.S.R.T.C. Bus Station at Alappuzha within three months.

M.I.Francis Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No.40898 of 2016

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 M.I.FRANCIS, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O.IGNATIUS, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, BEACH WARD,

¶10

ALAPPUZHA - 688 012.

¶11

2 SHAJAHAN,

¶12

S/O.USUPH, Autorickshaw DRIVER, FARIS MANZIL, MANNANCHERRY, VALLAKKADAVU, MANNANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 538.

¶13

3 ENAZ,

¶14

S/O.SHEREEF, Autorickshaw DRIVER, MULLATHUVALAPPU, ERAVUKADU WARD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶15

4 SHAJI.M, S/O.MUHAMMADALI, Autorickshaw DRIVER, CHIRAYIL, ALISSERRI WARD, THIRUVAMBADI P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 002.

¶16

5 G.SASEENDRAN PILLAI

¶17

S/O.K.GOPALA PILLAI, Autorickshaw DRIVER, DWARAKA, A.N.PURAM WARD, IRON BRIDGE P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 011.

¶18

6 HASHIM.A S/O.ANWAR, Autorickshaw DRIVER, AL-AFEER MANZIL, BEACH WARD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶19

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR

¶20

SRI.K.B.DAYAL

¶21

RESPONDENTS:

¶22

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶23

2 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., ALAPPUZHA - 688

¶24

W.P.(C) No.40898/2016

¶25

-:2:-

¶26

3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ALAPPUZHA.

¶27

4 THE ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA.

¶28

5 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, COLLECTORATE COMPLEX, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶29

BY ADVS.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SYAMJI RAM SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

W.P.(C) No.40898/2016

¶32

-:3:-

¶33

C.K.ABDUL REHIM & R.NARAYANA PISHARADI,JJ.

¶34

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.40898 of 2016(S)

¶35

- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - – - - - - Dated this the 3^rd day of July,2019

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶38

The 1^st petitioner is claiming that he is a social worker concentrating his activities for betterment of the welfare of the society. Petitioners 2 to 6 claim that they are Autorickshaw Drivers plying their Autorickshaws in and around Alappuzha town. In this public interest litigation, they are voicing a grievance against alleged inaction on the part of the respondents in starting a 'pre-paid Autorickshaw counter' in the premises of the K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand at Alappuzha, despite there exists a fully constructed room intended for the said purpose.

¶39

It is stated that the 1^st petitioner, through Ext.P1 representation, had approached the 4^th respondent and the other respondents requesting to take appropriate action in the above said matter. But none of the authorities have taken any steps, is the complaint. In a query made under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the 2^nd respondent had replied that the 'pre-paid counter' constructed is not under the control of the K.S.R.T.C.

¶40

W.P.(C) No.40898/2016

¶41

-:4:-

¶42

and therefore the K.S.R.T.C. is not in a position to take any further steps in the matter. Similarly, the 4^th respondent had replied to the 1^st petitioner that, neither the K.S.R.T.C. nor the Traffic Advisory Committee, had approached the Municipality for establishment of the 'pre-paid counter' or for numbering of such a building. Therefore it is stated that no action can be taken from the side of the Municipality.

¶43

It is explained in the writ petition that the public at large is being exploited by the Autorickshaw Drivers, who park their Autorickshaws in front of the K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand, by taking excess charges for their trips carrying passengers. It is pointed out that, if the plying of Autorickshaws from K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand is regulated through the pre-payment system by making the counter operational, such exploitations can be curbed. It is pointed out that, a building with requisite facilities has already been constructed for the said purpose. But since the last few years, the authorities concerned are not taking any effective steps to make the pre-paid counter operational.

¶44

Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 5 submitted on instructions that, the Regional Transport Officer had already made a request to the Municipality, as early as on 17.03.2017, to take necessary steps for assignment of building number to the 'pre-paid counter'. But no action has been taken from

¶45

W.P.(C) No.40898/2016

¶46

-:5:-

¶47

the side of the Municipality. Even though learned Standing Counsel had entered appearance for the 4^th respondent Municipality, they have not chosen to file vakalath or any counter affidavit before this Court. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submitted that, the K.S.R.T.C. have no objection in functioning the 'pre-paid counter' in the building proposed.

¶48

We are of the considered opinion that the petitioners are approaching this Court with a genuine grievance, which affects the public at large. We cannot find any vested interest on the side of the petitioners in filing the above public interest litigation.

¶49

Considering the fact that there exists a suitable building to operate the 'pre-paid Autorickshaw Counter' in front of the K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand, it is for the authorities concerned to take appropriate steps for starting its functioning. It is pointed out that, normally the 'Traffic Advisory Committee' functioning with participation of the District Police Authorities, the Regional Transport Authorities and the Municipality has to take the requisite steps in this regard.

¶50

Therefore, the above writ petition is hereby disposed of by directing the respondents 3 to 5 to take necessary steps to start functioning of “pre-paid Autorickshaw Counter” at the K.S.R.T.C. Bus Station at Alappauzha, in the building already constructed for the

¶51

W.P.(C) No.40898/2016

¶52

-:6:-

¶53

said purpose, after taking necessary steps for numbering of the building, if required. Positive steps in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

C.K.ABDUL REHIM

JUDGE

Sd/-

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶59

JUDGE

¶60

DST

¶61

W.P.(C) No.40898/2016

¶62

-:7:-

¶63

APPENDIX

¶64

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶65

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ONE OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 22/07/2016 WHICH WAS SUBMITTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶66

EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P1 REPRESENTATION DATED 22/07/2016. EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 04/11/2016 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2 REPLY DATED 04/11/2016.

¶67

EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE (REPLY) DATED 18/10/2016 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶68

EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3 NOTICE (REPLY) DATED 18/10/2016 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶69

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶70

//True copy// P.A.To Judge

M.I.Francis v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.I.Francis 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Hal International Vs the State of Kerala

M/S.Everest Plywoods Vs State of Kerala

Everest Plywoods Vs State of Kerala

The State of Kerala Vs Saji Markose

Saji Markose Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rasheed K.K Vs Government of Kerala