Disposed

Philip P Mathew v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC23 Jul 2019WP(C)/616/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing authorities to install no parking boards and remove obstructions in front of their residential properties. The Court directed the Traffic Police to enforce parking regulations without barring parking on existing road margins that do not obstruct ingress.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to ensure strict compliance of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017. Permitted parking on a 2-meter road margin if it does not cause obstruction.

Philip P Mathew Vs the Regional Transport Authority — RTI and Transparency | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.616 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 PHILIP P MATHEW, AGED 49 YEARS, PATHICHERIL HOUSE, CHITRAPUZHA, IRIMPANAM P.O.

¶8

2 MATHEW N THOMAS, PATHICHERIL HOUSE, CHITRAPUZHA, IRIMPANAM P.O BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM 682 030

¶11

2 JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THRIPUNITURA 682 301

¶12

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (TRAFFIC), HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, THRIPUNITHURA 682 301

¶13

4 THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, THRIPUNITHURA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 301 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

5 TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, THRIPUNITHURA P.O., 682 301

¶15

6 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, ERNAKULAM 682 031

¶16

BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT MABLE C.KURIEN SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) No.616/2019

C.R.

JUDGMENT

The 1^st petitioner is the owner of building bearing No.13/508 and the 2^nd petitioner is the owner of building bearing No.13/507 on the side of the Irumpanam Refinery Main Road, which is maintained by the Public Works Department. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix No parking board in front of their compound wall and to take appropriate action against the illegal encroachers and also to ensure that there is no parking of any vehicle for a stretch of 30 meters in front of their houses. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to remove all obstructions for their ingress and egress and their vehicles to their houses.

¶23

On 09.01.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3 and 6. This Court

¶24

W.P.(C) No.616/2019

¶25

¶26

issued urgent notice by speed post to respondents 4 and 5 returnable within two weeks. The learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

¶27

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said counter affidavit read thus;

¶28

“5. It is submitted that the Petta-KRL Road is a heavy traffic road. The trucks and tanker lorries coming from difference places including national permits vehicles are parking on the side of these road when the parking in the refinery is full. More over both sides of the Petta-KRL road there are some automobile workshops and Hydraulic Work Shops situated situated. Hence the Kerala and other state vehicles coming for repair are also parking on the both sides of that road including the front area of the petitioner's property.

¶29

6. It is submitted that the petitioner had lodged a complaint before this respondent on 02.01.2019 regarding unauthorized parking in front of the petitioner's house. It was got enquired and removed the vehicles parked nearby the petitioner's gate. Between the Petitioners' compound wall and tar road there is a road margin having approximately 2 meters width and Drainage having approximately 8 meters width. Hence parking of the vehicle on either side of

¶30

W.P.(C) No.616/2019

¶31

¶32

the petitioner's gate, keeping sufficient distance from the entry point of the gate, will not obstruct ingress and egress of the petitioners. The traffic police erected three No Parking Boards on the Petta-KRL road in front area of petitioner's gate in order to avoid unauthorized parking. True photographs of the road infront of the Petitioner's property produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R3(a) . It is submitted that Traffic Police Tripunithura is very vigilant in this type of unauthorized parking cases and Police is initiating action against the drivers who are parking their vehicles unauthorizedly in front of the petitioners house and on that road.”

¶33

(underline supplied)

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶35

the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 6 and also the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

¶36

In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in supersession of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways issued the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017. Regulation 5 of the said Regulations deals with duties of drivers and

¶37

W.P.(C) No.616/2019

¶38

¶39

riders. As per sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 5, the driver shall ensure that his vehicle, while moving or when stationary, does not cause any hindrance or undue inconvenience to other road users or to the occupants of any properties. Regulation 22 deals with stopping and parking. As per clause (c) of sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 22, a vehicle shall not be parked on a foot path, cycle track and pedestrian crossing. As per clause (i) of sub-regulation (2), a vehicle shall not be parked in front of the entrance or exit of a property.

¶40

In Writ Petition (C) No.295 of 2012 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, by a publicspirited citizen, seeking enforcement of road safety norms and appropriate treatment of accident victims, the Apex Court constituted a 'Committee on Road Safety', vide its order dated 22.04.2014, and notified by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, on 30.05.2014. In the said writ petition the Apex Court delivered a judgment dated

¶41

W.P.(C) No.616/2019

¶42

¶43

30.11.2017 - S.Rajaseekaran v. Union of India [(2018) 13 SCC 532] . In the said decision, the Apex Court observed that all States and Union Territories are expected to implement the Road Safety Policy with all due earnestness and seriousness. In Para 94.13 of the said decision, in the context of 'Lane Driving', the Apex Court held that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has already issued the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 which should be implemented by the State Governments and Union Territories strictly.

¶44

In view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle (Driving) Regulations, 2017 the driver of a motor vehicle has to ensure that his vehicle, when stationary, does not cause any hindrance or undue inconvenience to other road users or the occupants of any properties; and no vehicle shall be parked in front of the entrance or exit of a property.

¶45

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed

¶46

W.P.(C) No.616/2019

¶47

¶48

of by directing the 3^rd respondent to ensure strict compliance of the aforesaid provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 thereby preventing parking of any vehicles in front of the entrance of the petitioners' residential buildings.

¶49

It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of parking of vehicles on the road margin having a width of approximately 2 meters, as evident from Ext.R3(a) photographs, without causing obstruction to vehicular entry to the petitioners' residential buildings and without causing any obstruction to the pedestrians and other road users.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶52

AV/30/7

¶53

W.P.(C) No.616/2019

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX

¶56

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶57

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTO COPY OF THE EVIDENCE THE BLOCKING OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S CAR DUE TO THE UN-AUTHORISED PARKING OF A TRUCK IN FRONT OF THE HIS THARAVADU HOUSE

¶58

EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE UNAUTHORIZED PARKING OF A LORRY ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THEIR COMPOUND

¶59

EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.3 ON 2/1/2019 FOR REMOVING THE UNAUTHORIZED PARKING OF THE VEHICLES

¶60

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶61

EXHIBIT R3(a) TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ROAD IN FRONT OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY

¶62

//True Copy//

¶63

P.A.To Judge

Philip P Mathew v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Philip P Mathew v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santhosh.P.P Vs Elamkunnapuzha Grama Panchayat

Jaiaraj J., Vs the Secretary

Sheela Francis Vs State of Kerala

Chandran Nair Vs Akathethara Grama Panchayat

K.B.Hameed Vs State of Kerala

Joy Thottathil, Vs the Traffic Regulatory Committee