Writ petition filed by competing taxi drivers against the Kerala State Human Rights Commission order permitting a new driver to operate. The Court held that allowing the new driver under threat of violence was proper and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition dismissed; impugned order of the State Human Rights Commission sustained.
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
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
WP(C).No.4197 OF 2020(Y)
PETITIONERS:
1 CHANDRAN G. AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. GOVINDAN, 'SOORYALAYAM', PANAVILA, MULLOOR P. O., VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST., PIN - 695 521.
2 AHILASH S.V. AGED 29, S/O.SUDHAKARAN P., SUDHA BHAVAN, PARANKIMAVILA, VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST., PIN - 695 521.
BY ADV. SRI.S.JUSTUS
RESPONDENTS:
1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 521.
2 SIVAKUMAR S., WARYAN VILAKATHU EDATHATTU VEEDU, MULLOOR P. O., VIZHINJAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST., PIN - 695 521.
R1 BY SR.GP SRI.V. TEKCHAND
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.4197 of 2020
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2020
S.Manikumar, C.J.
Challenging Exhibit-P1 order passed by Kerala State Human Rights
Commission in H.R.M.P.No.7040/11/12/2019 dated 17.12.2019, instant writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:
the taxi drivers of a taxi stand at Vizhinjam area which includes Chowara, Thottam, Niramaya and Bethsyeda. There arose a dispute between taxi unions, in inducting a new driver (respondent No.2) to the abovesaid taxi stand. Hence, the 2nd respondent approached Kerala State Human Rights Commission by filing H.R.M.P.No.7040/11/12/2019, wherein permission was sought to take trips from the abovesaid taxi stand. Commission passed order dated 17.12.2019 (Exhibit-P1), directing the Police to take necessary steps as and when required. Petitioners contend that the said
W.P.(C)No.4197 of 2020
3
order was passed without issuing notice to the respondents therein, which include the 1st petitioner, or without affording them an opportunity of being heard. The translated version of Exhibit-P1 order is reproduced:
“Order Dated 17.12.2019
The complaint is that the petitioner is working as Taxi driver and the opposite parties are not permitting the petitioner to drive vehicle in the stand of Hotels of Vizhinjam area which includes Chowara, Thottam, Niramaya and Bethsyeda.
In the above matter, the Vizhinjam Police Inspector have filed a report after the enquiry. It is seen from the report that the petitioner was driving his vehicle in the Thapovanam Tourist Resort of Nellikunnu upto 2015. After the closure of the above said resort the petitioner was driving his vehicle independently. Recently the petitioner sought permission to drive his rented vehicle in the Taxi Stand of Bethsyeda and Niramaya Resort, the opposition Union drivers allowed to drive the vehicle. The drivers of the union of ruling party opposed to drive the vehicle of the petitioner. Thereafter a fight between both the unions and thereby crime nos.2751/19 and 2752/19 has been registered and the investigation is completed and the charge sheet has been submitted to the court. Moreover, the parties are called in direct and individually and jointly for trying a settlement and it was not possible.
The commission has gone through the complaint and report and heard the petitioner in person. The police have the right to protect the petitioner to live by working. Therefore the
W.P.(C)No.4197 of 2020
4
police have to take necessary steps in case of threat from the opposite parties. Moreover, this being a labour dispute, disposing the complaint by directing the police and the concerned labour department has to find a solution jointly.”
grounds:
W.P.(C)No.4197 of 2020
5
Viewing the issue as a labour dispute, Human Rights Commission has only observed that Police has to take necessary steps if there is a threat from the opposite parties. Though the petitioner has assailed the order of the Human Rights Commission, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned for the reason that respondent No.2 is entitled to protection in case of threat. Human Rights Commission has not interfered with the labour dispute. There are no merits in this writ petition. Impugned order is sustained. Writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.Manikumar, Chief Justice
Sd/-
Shaji P.Chaly Judge
vpv
W.P.(C)No.4197 of 2020
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Kerala State Human Rights Commission order that was passed without issuing notice to the petitioners.
Whether the dispute regarding taxi stand permissions is a labour dispute beyond the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission.
CHANDRAN G.
AHILASH S.V.
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIZHINJAM
SIVAKUMAR S.
S.MANIKUMAR
SHAJI P.CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
