Disposed

George V.D. v. the Secretary

Kerala HC11 Jul 2022WP(C)/3275/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought to remove autorikshaw obstruction in front of his shop. The court directed respondents 1 to 4 to ensure no unauthorized parking by additional respondents 6 to 10 or other owners obstructs ingress and egress to the shop immediately.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 to 4 directed to ensure no unauthorized parking by additional respondents or other owners obstructs ingress/egress to the petitioner's shop rooms immediately.

George V.D. Vs the Secretary — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 3275 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

GEORGE V.D.
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.RAJU JOSEPH, VECHURETTU HOUSE,
VANDANMEDU, IDUKKI.
BY ADVS.
R.SUNIL KUMAR
A.SALINI LAL
ARUN KRISHNA

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

1 THE SECRETARY VANDANMEDU GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, VANDANMEDU, IDUKKI - 685 581.

¶8

2 VANDANMEDU GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VANDANMEDU GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, VENDANMEDU, IDUKKI - 685 581.

¶9

3 THE CHAIRMAN TRAFFIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY, VANDANMEDU GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, VENDANMEDU, IDUKKI - 685 551.

¶10

4 INSPECTOR OF POLICE VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION, VANDANMEDU, IDUKK I - 685 551.

¶11

5 SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, NEDUMKANDAM, UDUMBUCHOLA, IDUKKI - 685 553.

¶12

6 ADDL. R6:MUTHAYYA, (KL-37A5725), S/O.SAJEEVA AMBALAM, 11/70, MATTAKANAM HOUSE, VANDANMETTU P.O., IDUKKI-685 551.

¶13

7 ADDL. R7: VIJI GEORGE, S/O.VARGHESE, ILAVUNKAL HOUSE, VANDANAMEDU P.O., IDUKKI-685 553.

¶14

8 ADDL. R8: RAJASEKHARAN, (KL-06 F 7456), S/O.SANGAYYA, GANAPATHI VILASOM, VANDANMEDU P.O., IDUKKI-685 551.

¶15

9 ADDL.R9: M.MUTHIAYA, (KL-05 AF 7546), S/O.MUTHURAJ, SARAVANAN VILASAM, VANDANMEDU P.O., PUTHUVAL, IDUKKI-685 551.

¶16

W.P.(C).No.3275/2022

¶17

¶18

10ADDL. 10: SIVAPRASAD, (KL 69 A 7327),
S/O.SUKUMARAN PILLAI, SIVA BHAVAN, VANDANMEDU,
IDUKKI-685 551.

¶19

(ADDL R6 TO R10 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
15-03-2022 IN IA 1/22).
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JOMY K. JOSE, SC, GRAMA PANCHAYAT
THOMAS ABRAHAM
MERCIAMMA MATHEW
ASWIN.P.JOHN
THAYYIB SHA P.S.
PAUL BABY

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.P.(C).No.3275/2022

¶24

¶25

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶26

W.P.(C).No.3275 of 2022

¶27

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2022

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶30

i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to remove the obstruction caused due to illegal parking of autorikshaws in front of the petitioner's shop room bearing number no: 18/225, 226, 227 and 228 in ward no:18 of Vandanmedu Grama Panchayath.

¶31

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to consider and take action on Exbt P-3 to P-5.

¶32

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 4^th respondent to consider and take action on Exbt P-4.

¶33

iv. Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶34

(SIC)

¶35

W.P.(C).No.3275/2022

¶36

¶37

The main prayer in this writ petition is to remove the obstruction caused due to illegal parking of autorikshaws in front of the petitioner's shop rooms bearing number Nos. 18/225, 226, 227 and 228 in Ward No.18 of Vandanmedu Grama Panchayath. It is the case of the petitioner that in Ext.P6 it is clearly stated that there is no approved autorikshaw stand in this area.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned counsel for the Panchayat and the learned counsel for respondents 6 to 10.

¶39

The grievance of the petitioner is that unauthorized parking of autorikshaws in front of the petitioner's shop rooms causes obstruction for the free ingress and egress for the customers. A perusal of Ext.P6 will show that there is no approved parking space for autorikshaws. If that is the case, it is the duty of respondents 1 to 4 to see that there is no obstruction to the free ingress and egress to the petitioner's shop rooms by parking autorikshaws unauthorizedly especially when there is no parking space earmarked in this area as evident by Ext.P6.

¶40

W.P.(C).No.3275/2022

¶41

¶42

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

¶43

Respondents 1 to 4 are directed to see that there is no obstruction for the free ingress and egress to the petitioner's shop rooms from the side of additional respondents 6 to 10 and other autorikshaw owners by parking their vehicles in front of the petitioner's shop rooms with immediate effect.

¶44

sd/-

¶45

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

¶48

W.P.(C).No.3275/2022

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3275/2022

¶51

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶52

Exhibit P1COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT (4
NOS.) DATED 17/4/21.
Exhibit P2COPY OF THE P;PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE
PARKING OF AUTORIKSHAWS.
Exhibit P3COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT DATED
25/1/2020.
Exhibit P4COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 4TH
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT DATED
18/2/20.
Exhibit P5COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 20/3/20.
Exhibit P6COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 21/1/22.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R6THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS
SHOWING THE PARKING OF AUTORIKSHAWS

George V.D. v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George V.D. v. the Secretary

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

Kuriakose K. Varghese Vs District Collector

Y.Damodaran Vs State

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Dr.R.Gopinathan, Vs Thrissur Corporation

Rugmini Amma Vs State of Kerala

Sukumaran Vs Champakkualam Grama Panchayath