Disposed

Ampily Krishnan v. the District Collector

Kerala HC1 Feb 2021WP(C)/830/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged unauthorized taxi auto parking and harassment near their residence in Thiruvalla. The Court found petitioners had not filed any complaint with the Municipality or the Traffic Regulatory Committee. It directed them to file applications with the correct authorities within two weeks to exhaust remedies.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file appropriate applications before the 4th and 6th respondents within two weeks for consideration within one month.

Ampily Krishnan Vs the District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.830/2021 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶5

MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942

¶6

WP(C).No.830 OF 2021(C)

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 AMPILY KRISHNAN

¶9

AGED 39 YEARS W/O. PRAMOD KUMAR, RESIDING AT VISWABHARATHY, THIRUMOOLAPURAM P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 115.

¶10

2 ANNAMMA BEHANAN

¶11

AGED 68 YEARS

¶12

KEECHERIL HOUSE, THIRUMOOLAPURAM P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 115.

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI) SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI) SMT.T.U.ANUKRISHNA

¶15

RESPONDENT:

¶16

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 645.

¶17

2 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, NEAR STADIUM JUNCTION,

¶18

AZHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.

¶19

3 SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

¶20

SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, 4TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 101.

¶21

4 THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MARKET ROAD, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT689 101.

¶22

5 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶23

OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689101.

¶24

6 TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE

¶25

W.P.(C) No.830/2021

¶26

¶27

REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MARKET ROAD, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689101.

¶28

OTHER PRESENT:

¶29

R1 TO 3,5,6 – SRI.K.P.HARISH,SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER R4 - SRI.SUBHASH CHAND,SC

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No.830/2021

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of February 2021

¶35

Petitioners herein are the residents of the 4^th respondent. According to them, the first petitioner is living with her 7 year old girl child and the second petitioner lives alone in the locality. Their grievance is that, unauthorized taxi auto parking is functioning in front of their gate and compound. It obstructs their entry to the house. It is also stated that, they are harassed by the auto drivers and they pick up quarrel with them frequently. Their further grievance is that, in the meanwhile, Ext.P5 order has been issued to her calling upon the addressee to demolish an unauthorised construction.

¶36

When the matter was taken up today, learned standing Counsel for the Thiruvalla Municipality submitted that, Ext.P5 was occasioned to be issued pursuant to a complaint given by the local taxi auto drivers' association alleging against illegal construction. Learned standing counsel further submitted that, it is informed by the Municipality that Ext.P5 was wrongly forwarded to the petitioners herein and they do not propose to take any action pursuant to the above, against the petitioners. It is also submitted that, even after verification of the records, it is found that the petitioners have not approached the Thiruvalla Municipality with any complaint regarding the unauthorised taxi auto parking.

¶37

Learned senior Government Pleader pointed out that, 6^th respondent having jurisdiction in the area, is the competent authority to consider such

¶38

W.P.(C) No.830/2021

¶39

¶40

issue . It seems that, petitioners have not approached the 6^th respondent by filing proper application . Learned Government Pleader further submits that necessary action shall be taken in the light of the decision reported in J estin

¶41

Thomas and Others v. Circle Inspector of Police and Others (2019 (2) KHC 610) .

¶42

Having considered the rival contentions, writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners herein to file appropriate application before the 4th respondent Municipality as well as the 6th respondent within a period of two weeks from today,raising their grievances. Thereupon, the 4^th and 6^th respondents shall consider the petitioners' applications and dispose of the same, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of of receipt of such applications. The 6^th respondent shall decide the issue in consultation with respondents 2 and 3 as contemplated under the statute.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

dpk

W.P.(C) No.830/2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶51

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20.6.2020.

¶52

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SIGNAL SITUATING IN FRONT OF THE IST PETITIONER'S COMPOUND. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN TO THE RTI DATED 14.12.2020.

¶53

EXHIBIT.P4 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING FOR THE UNAUTHORISED PARKING OF TAXI AUTO.

¶54

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER FOR DEMOLISING THE UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION DATED 22.12.2020.

Ampily Krishnan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ampily Krishnan 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anto John A.S Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Smitha Sivadasan Vs Regional Transport Authority, Kannur

Shamjan S., Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

T.P.Moideen Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Krishnakumar.v Vs Paramelpady Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Ltd. No.R 157 (D) Apcos

Saju Kumar S. Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation