Remanded

Muhammed Shameer, v. Station House Officer

Kerala HC4 Oct 2021WP(C)/15981/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to decide the merit of a petition challenging a ban on loaded vehicles. It directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation regarding government orders on vehicle restrictions and to conduct a hearing before passing final orders.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation and hear the petitioner and affected parties before passing final orders on the prohibition.

Muhammed Shameer, Vs Station House… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 12TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 15981 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MUHAMMED SHAMEER, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. HAMSA, CHERKKUNATH HOUSE, MAPPATTUKARA, KULUKKALLUR, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. P.JAYARAM GIGI PAPPACHAN SARATH CHANDRAN K.B.

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHERPULASSERIAL POLICE STATION, CHERPULASSERI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 503. 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶9

OTHER PRESENT:

¶10

SMT.RASHMI.K.M, SR.GP

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

W.P.(C).No.15981/2021

¶13

¶14

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶15

W.P.(C).No.15981 of 2021

¶16

Dated this the 04^th day of October, 2021

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶19

i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Exhibit P1 Notice.

¶20

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction order directing the 1^st respondent to permit traffic of loaded tipper vehicles carrying goods to reach petitioner's unit, licensed under Exhibit P2, through Ezhuvanthala to Marayamangalam public road.

¶21

Iii. Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶22

The petitioner is running a M.sand unit at building No.XII/32 of Kulukkallur Grama Panchayath in Pattambi Taluk. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 public notice affixed near a road which leads to the unit of the petitioner. In Ext.P1 it is stated that certain types of vehicles are prohibited in that road, especially lorries going to M.sand units, quarry, crusher units, etc. It is the case of the petitioner that this is the only

¶23

¶24

W.P.(C).No.15981/2021

¶25

road which leads to the unit of the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the alternative road suggested by the respondents is a circuited road. The counsel submitted that as per Ext.P5 Government Order, the Government prescribes certain restrictions for operating goods vehicles having 10 tones above through roads having less than 6 meters. The counsel also submitted that as evident by Ext.P6, the width of the road is 8 meters.

¶26

The Government Pleader seriously opposed the submission. The Government Pleader submitted that the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P1 because of a mass complaint from the local residents. The Government Pleader submitted that the alternative road is a circuited road is not factually correct. The Government Pleader also submitted that the 1^st respondent acted only in accordance to law and that also in the light of a mass petition from the public.

¶27

I don't want to make any observation about the merit of the case. Admittedly the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 1^st respondent against Ext.P1 public notice. According to the petitioner in the light of Exts.P5 and P6, Ext.P1 public notice will not stand. Again I don't want to

¶28

¶29

W.P.(C).No.15981/2021

¶30

make any observation about the applicability of Exts.P5 and P6 in this case. It is a matter to be looked into by the 1^st respondent and to take appropriate steps in accordance to law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected parties.

¶31

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner:

¶32

The 1^st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4 representation in the light of Exts.P5 and P6, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶33

Before passing final orders in Ext.P4, the 1^st respondent will hear the petitioner and one or two representatives of the affected parties.

¶34

The petitioner is free to produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1^st respondent for compliance.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C).No.15981/2021

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15981/2021

¶41

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶42

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE NOTICE EXHIBITED AT THE STARTING JUNCTION OF EZHUVANTHALA TO MARAYAMANGALAM PUBLIC ROAD BARRING PASSAGE OF LOADED VEHICLES TO QUARRY AND CRUSHER UNITS THROUGH EZHUVANTHALA MARAYAMANGALAM PUBLIC ROAD.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE NO. 62/2021- 22 DATED 12.04.21 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM KULUKKALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO RUN THE UNIT.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.11.2020 ISSUED FROM KULUKKALLUR VILLAGE OFFICE WITH RESPECT PETITIONERS, PROPERTY.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.07.2201 PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHERPULASSERI SEEKING PERMISSION FOR PASSAGE OF GOODS VEHICLES WITH SIX THROUGH EZHUVANTHALA TO MARAYAMANGALAM, PUBLIC ROAD.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.NO 59/2015/TRAN DATED 29.0.2015
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 7.9.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM NALLAYA GRAMA PANCHAYATH SHOWING THE WIDTH OF EZHUVQANTHAL- MARAYAMANGALAM ROAD TO BE 8 METERS

Muhammed Shameer, v. Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Shameer, v. Station House Officer

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

Binu Mathew Vs Kerala Water Authority

Suresh Mathew Vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

Haneefa Vs Kerala State Women'S Development Corpo

Dr. Reema Thomas Kochupurakal Vs State of Kerala

K.B.Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Johnson Peter Vs State of Kerala and Others