Dismissed

A.J.Varghese, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jan 2023WP(C)/12796/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam held that the Traffic Regulatory Committee was bound to reconsider a decision set aside by this Court. It set aside the Committee's order refusing reconsideration and directed the Committee to resolve parking disputes by hearing stakeholders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the Traffic Regulatory Committee's order refusing reconsideration and directed the Committee to consider parking issues by hearing all stakeholders within six weeks.

A.J.Varghese, Vs State of Kerala — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN TUESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 20TH POUSHA, 1944

¶4

WP(C) NO. 12796 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

A.J. VARGHESE, AGED 47 YEARS S/O. JACOB, ARAKKAL HOUSE, PAVARATTY P. O., THRISSUR, PRESIDENT MERCHANT WELFARE SOCIETY, PAVARATTY - 680 507. BY ADVS. SREEHARI INDUKALADHARAN DEVIKA T.S. GEETHANJALI NEELANCHERI SREEDHARA S.SHINE RENJITH M.C. ARYA A.R. ADARSH S.S ADITHYA RAJEEV

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES RD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 003. 3 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, 9/128, MANJULA SHOPPING COMPLEX, EAST NADA, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR - 680 101. 4 PAVARATTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PAVARATTY PALUVAL RD, CHITTATTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA - 680 507.

¶9

¶10

WP(C).No.12796 OF 2022

¶11

5 SECRETARY, PAVARATTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PAVARATTY PALUVAL RD, CHITTATTUKAA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA - 680 507. 6 PRESIDENT, PAVARATTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PAVARATTY PALUVAL RD, CHITTATTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA - 680 507. 7 THE TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PAVARATTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PAVARATTY PALUVAL RD, CHITTATTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA - 680 507. 8 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAVARATTY POLICE STATION, PAVARATTY, THRISSUR - 680 507. 9 MUJEEB RAHMAN, AGED 35 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED, NALAKATHELANTHARA HOUSE, BLANGAD P. O., CHAVAKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 506. BY ADVS. ABRAHAM MATHAN N.K.SUBRAMANIAN SRI. B. S SYAMANTHAK – GP SRI. RAJIT - SC

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No.12796 OF 2022

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner is the President of the Merchants Welfare Society (hereinafter referred to as the ‘society’, for short), Pavaratty, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The members of the society are shopkeepers conducting business in shops on either side of KanjannyEnamavu-Chavakkad road at Pavaratty centre. The petitioner is aggrieved by parking of autorickshaws all along the Kanjanny-Enamavu-Chavakkad road at Pavaratty junction obstructing the ingress and egress to the shop rooms of the members of the society and creating disturbance to the free movement of pedestrians. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in the matter of parking of autorickshaws in Pavaratty town which culminated in Exts.P6 and

¶17

WP(C).No.12796 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

P14 judgments. Though this Court set aside Ext.P10 decision of the Traffic Regulatory Committee in Ext.P14 judgment and directed reconsideration of the decision, the Traffic Regulatory Committee by Ext.P16 decision decided not to reconsider the decision taken in Ext.P10. The petitioner contends that once Ext.P10 is set aside and the matter is relegated to the Traffic Regulatory Committee for reconsideration, the Traffic Regulatory Committee has to reconsider the same and Ext.P16 amounts to contempt and is illegal and arbitrary.

¶20

Heard the counsel on both sides.

¶21

The decision of the Traffic Regulatory Committee in Ext.P16 is per se contrary to the directions of this Court in Ext.P14 judgment. When

¶22

this Court has set aside the decision of the Traffic Regulatory Committee and directed the said authority

¶23

WP(C).No.12796 OF 2022

¶24

¶25

to reconsider the same, the said authority shall not

¶26

pass an order in the nature of Ext.P16 refusing to reconsider Ext.P10 decision. Accordingly, Ext.P16 is set aside.

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner is that the autorickshaws are parked in front of the shops owned by the members of the society, obstructing the ingress and egress to their shops, and this has adversely affected their business. Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act provides for the constitution of a Traffic Regulatory Committee in all local authorities for regulating the manner and time of traffic of all kinds in public places, which includes power to demarcate autorickshaw/auto Taxi Stands also. The Kerala Police Rules, 2000 provide that the Traffic Regulatory Committee shall have the powers to annihilate or avoid traffic incidents obstructing or

¶28

WP(C).No.12796 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

causing injuries to the general public and such

¶31

instructions shall be complied with by all the Government departments and the general public.

¶32

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the Traffic Regulatory Committee, the 7^th respondent, to consider the issue of parking of autorickshaws on Kanjanny-Enamavu-Chavakkad road at Pavaratty junction to annihilate and avoid traffic incidents obstructing or causing injuries to the general public. The grievance of the petitioner that the autorickshaws are parked in front of the shops owned by the members of the society obstructing the ingress and egress to their shops shall also be considered by the 7^th respondent. The 7^th respondent shall hear the petitioner, the 9^th respondent and all other stakeholders whom the Committee deems fit to be heard. Before the Traffic Regulatory Committee

¶33

WP(C).No.12796 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

takes a final decision, the views of the pedestrians

¶36

and commuters at the Kanjanny-EnamavuChavakkad road at Pavaratty junction randomly selected shall also be ascertained and their views shall be discussed at the meeting of the Committee. The decision as aforesaid shall be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶40

SPR

¶41

WP(C).No.12796 OF 2022

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶45

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF 10.12.2014.	TH	E CERTIFICATE DATED
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY 30.06.2017.	OF	THE REPLY DATED
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY 16.03.2015 IS ASSISTANT COM	OF SUED MISS	THE LETTER DATED BY THE PANCHAYATH TO IONER OF POLICE.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY PAVARATTY CEN	OF TRE	THE PHOTOGRAPH OF ROAD.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF 13.07.2017 IN	THE WPC	INTERIM ORDER DATED NO.23226/2017.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY NO.23226/2017	OF .	THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY WITH THE MEMO	OF DAT	THE AFFIDAVIT ALONG ED 17.12.2020.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY PAVARATTY CEN	OF TRE	THE PHOTOGRAPH OF AFTER EXHIBIT P6.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF OF 2021 DATED	THE 29.	JUDGMENT IN WPC 19521 09.2021.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF DATED 27.11.2	TH 021.	E MINUTES OF MEETING
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY 02.12.2021.	OF	THE COMPLAINT DATED
EXHIBIT P11 (a)	A TRUE COPY RECEIPT DATED	OF 02.	THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 12.2021.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF FILED BY THE	TH 9TH	E COUNTER AFFIDAVIT RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF FILED BY THE	TH RESP	E COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ONDENT PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY O NO.28152/2021	F T DAT	HE JUDGMENT IN WPC ED 19.01.2022.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY SUBMITTED BY	OF THE	THE REPRESENTATION PETITIONER BEFORE THE
	TRAFFIC REGU 15.03.2022.	LATO	RY COMMITTEE DATED

¶46

WP(C).No.12796 OF 2022

¶47

¶48

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 18.03.2022. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.11669/2011 DATED 10.06.2014. EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.7029/2015 DATED 04.06.2015.

¶49

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.

A.J.Varghese, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.J.Varghese, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zeenath M.S. Vs Rajeev Kumar Chaudhary

Narayanan P.R. Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer Palakkad

Peethambaran A.B Vs the District Geologist

Shoppan Hover Varghese Vs Corporation of Kochi

Ashraf M, Vs Thamarassery Gramapanchayat

Rekha Mohanan Vs Corporation of Thrissur