Remanded

Ashokan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Dec 2019WP(C)/5826/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged unauthorized autorickshaw parking obstructed his shop. Court rejected reliance on unofficial arrangements, directing the Municipality to convene the Traffic Regulatory Committee within one month to decide on allocated parking areas. Pending that, parking allowed only if it does not obstruct access.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Secretary of the Attingal Municipality to convene the statutory Traffic Regulatory Committee within one month to decide on parking areas for autorickshaws, ensuring no obstruction to the

Ashokan Vs the State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.5826 OF 2019(C)

PETITIONER:

ASHOKAN

AGED 59 YEARS

S/O.JANARDHANAN, ASHOKAS SUPERMARKET, MOONUMUKKU, ATTINGAL.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTS, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

3 THE SECRETARY ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY.

¶15

4 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ATTINGAL.

¶16

5 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ATTINGAL.

¶17

6 ADDL.R6. B.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.BALANPILLAI, SURYALKSHMI, OPP.SUN AUDITORIUM KURUPPU LANE, MOONUMUKKU, (DRIVER/OWNER OF AUTORICKSHAW NO.KL 16 T-1619)

¶18

7 ADDL R7, V.MANIKANDAN, S/O.VISWAMBARAN, PADINJATTATHIL VEEDU, MOONUMUKKU, KEEZHUVILLAM, ATTINGAL, (OWNER/DRIVER OF AUTORICKSHAW BEARING NO.KL 16-129) ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R6 AND R7 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 6-03-2019 IN IA 1/2019 IN WP9C) 5826/2019.

¶19

R3 BY SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR,SC,ATTINGAL MUNICIP R6-7 BY ADV. M.DINESH

¶20

SMT. POOJA GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No.5826 OF 2019 2

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶24

alleging that the owners and drivers of autorickshaws and other transport vehicles are parking their vehicles in front of his shop room unauthorizedly and even though the

¶25

said place has not been notified as a 'parking area'. The petitioner, therefore, prays that such illegal parking be directed

¶26

to be removed by the 3^rd respondent - Secretary of the Attingal Municipality with the assistance of the 4^th respondent-Circle Inspector of Police, Attingal.

¶27

Shri.Ayyappan Sankar - learned

¶28

Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality concedes that the area in

¶29

question has not been notified as a 'parking area', but that instructions have been given

¶30

to all the owners and drivers of the

¶31

autorickshaws and transport vehicles that they shall not park their vehicles in any manner obstructing the free ingress and

¶32

WP(C).No.5826 OF 2019 3

¶33

egress to the business premises of the petitioner. He says that a joint inspection was conducted by the Municipality and the

¶34

Road Transport Officers, after which a decision was taken to allow the

¶35

autorickshaws to be parked here, though it is not a notified stand, in such manner so

¶36

as not to cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel says that if this Court is so inclined, the matter can be placed before the statutory Traffic Regulatory Committee, who can then take a final decision as to the parking areas to be alloted to the autorickshaws and other transport vehicles.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for

¶38

respondents 6 and 7 submits that, as is evident from Ext.R6(a), they have been alloted halting stand by the Regional

¶39

Transport Authority in their permits, as

¶40

being 'Stand Moonnumukku' and therefore, that it should be construed that the area in

¶41

WP(C).No.5826 OF 2019 4

¶42

question is a notified parking stand. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶43

Even when I hear the learned counsel

¶44

appearing for respondents 6 and 7 on the afore lines, it is without doubt that the specific stand of the Municipality, as voiced through their learned Standing Counsel Shri.Ayyappan Sankar, is that the area in question has not been notified as a parking stand, though vehicles have been allowed to be parked there without causing any prejudice to the petitioner. This stand

¶45

of the Municipality certainly is untenable because, it is enjoined upon them to identify proper spaces for allowing transport vehicles and autorickshaws to be parked and an unofficial arrangement cannot be allowed to be continued for all times.

¶46

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the Secretary of the Municipality

¶47

WP(C).No.5826 OF 2019 5

¶48

to ensure that the statutory Traffic Regulatory Committee for the Municipality is convened within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; which Committee will then hear the petitioner as well as respondents 6 and 7 and take a final decision as to the parking area to be alloted for the various autorickshaws and transport vehicles now being parked in the area in question.

¶49

The Committee will complete this exercise and issue appropriate orders in terms of law, within a period of one month

¶50

after they are convened; and until such time, vehicles shall be allowed to be parked in the area in question or in such manner not obstructing the ingress and egress to the petitioner's business premises and this shall be ensured by the 3^rd respondentSecretary of the Attingal Municipality with the assistance of the 4^th respondent-Circle Inspector of Police, Attingal.

¶51

WP(C).No.5826 OF 2019 6

¶52

Needless to say, if any violation of these directions are noticed by the petitioner, he will be at liberty to contact the respondents 4 and 5, who are the competent Police Officers, who will thereupon be obligated to ensure that all such illegal parking, obstructing the ingress and egress of the petitioner's premises, are immediately removed.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

MC/18.12.19

¶57

WP(C).No.5826 OF 2019 7

¶58

APPENDIX

¶59

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶60

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PARKING OF AUTORICKSHAWS IN FRONT OF THE SHOP ROOM OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (TRAFFIC) DATED 08/10/2018.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DATED 5/11/2018.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY, ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY DATED 6/10/2018.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING ACCEPTANCE OF EXHIBIT P4 DATED 14/10/2018.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ATTINGAL DATED 28/10/2018.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL DATED 10/11/2018.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 22/10/2016 (IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN 2018).
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KIZHUVILLAM DATED 1/8/2019.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KIZHUVALLAM DATED 1/8/2019.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE AUTORICKSHAWS PARKED INFRONT OF MY SHOP ROOM WHICH ALSO OBSTRUCTS THE USAGE OF THE BUS STOP.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE SIGNAL OF THE BUS STOP

¶61

WP(C).No.5826 OF 2019 8

¶62

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶63

EXHIBIT-R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT OF AUTORICKSHAW BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL16-T-1619.

¶64

EXHIBIT-R6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.11.2016. EXHIBIT-R6(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.12.2016

¶65

¶66

(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

Ashokan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashokan v. the State of Kerala

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

Ramachandran Vs Kulukkallur Grama Panchayath

Orange Tree Properties Vs State of Kerala

Joby M C Vs State of Kerala

Kalyani, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Moosa Vs Thrissur Municipal Corporation