Disposed

K.T. Pradeep, v. Sulthan Bathery Municipality

Kerala HC10 Jan 2024WP(C)/14620/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An autorickshaw owner aggrieved by allotment of an unviable halting place at Armad sought reallocation to a location in Sulthan Bathery town. The court disposed of the writ petition directing the Traffic Regulatory Committee to consider his request within six weeks and the Sub Regional Transport Officer to pass orders on its recommendation within two weeks.

What the court decided

AI extract

K.T. Pradeep, Vs Sulthan Bathery Municipality — Kerala HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 20TH POUSHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 14620 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

K.T. PRADEEP, AGED 41 YEARS S/O.THANKACHAN, KUNNEPARAMBIL HOUSE, BEENACHI P.O., KATTAYAD, WAYANAD - 673 596.

¶8

BY ADV GEORGE ABRAHAM

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 SULTHAN BATHERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SULTAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 595.

¶11

2 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, WAYANAD - 673 521. 3 THE SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SULTAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 592.

¶12

4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673 521.

¶13

5 ADDL R5, THE TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-CHAIRPERSON, SULTHAN BATHERY MUNICIPALITY,WAYANAD-673592.ADDL R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11-08-2023 IN IA 1/2023 IN WP(C) 14620/2020.

¶14

BY ADV Mr.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI T.V., SC, SULTHAN BATHERY MUNICIPALITY

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI. JUSTINE JACOB (SR GP)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P (C) No.14620/2020

¶19

-2-

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The petitioner is the owner of an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-73-A-4149. The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by the fact that in the permit issued by the 3^rd respondent the petitioner had been given the halting place at a place called Kenichira. It is submitted that the petitioner has suffered some physical disability on account of Elephant attack and therefore he is unable to do any physical hard work and therefore he had decided to purchase an autorickshaw to support his family. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the halting place provided at Kenithira gave absolutely no scope for any hire of the autorickshaw as there were no shops or any establishments at Kenichira. The petitioner therefore approached the 3^rd respondent for change of halting place and thereafter approached this court by filing by filing W.P (C) No.31088/2018. That writ petition was disposed of on 30-10-2018 directing the 3^rd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner. The places preferred by the petitioner were;

¶22

(1) Chungam

¶23

(2) Old Bus stand

¶24

(3) Assumption Hospital Junction

¶25

(4) Municipal Office Junction

¶26

(5) Gandhi Junction

¶27

On a consideration of the petitioner's request the petitioner was permitted halting place at Armad, which is situated at the border of Sulthan Bathery

¶28

W.P (C) No.14620/2020

¶29

-3-

¶30

town and abutting a reserve forest. The petitioner has produced Ext.P4 photograph to show that the new halting place provided to the petitioner is a lonely and isolated place and where again the petitioner will get no chance to ply his autorickshaw for hire. The petitioner has therefore approached this court seeking the following reliefs;

¶31

(i) to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropraite writ, order or direction, to quash the decision taken by the 2^nd respondent, which is endorsed in Ext.P1 whereby the halting place of the petitioner was reallocated to Armad from Kenichira.

¶32

(ii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus; or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to sanction the halting place of the Autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL73A 4149, either at Chungam or at Private Bus stand, as per the recommendation of the 3^rd respondent.

¶33

(iii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus; or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1^st respondents to consider Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner for change of halting place from Armad to Sulthan Bathery Private bus stand.

¶34

When this matter is taken up for consideration today, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent Municipality that the Traffic Regulatory Committee of the Sulthan Bathery Municipality which has been impleaded as additional 5^th respondent can be approached for considering the claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that thereafter on the basis of the recommendation of the Traffic Regulatory Committee the 3^rd respondent can be directed to pass suitable orders.

¶35

W.P (C) No.14620/2020

¶36

-4-

¶37

The learned Government Pleader also submits that based on the recommendation of the Traffic Regulatory Committee, the 3^rd respondent can be directed to pass orders on the request of the petitioner.

¶38

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent Municipality and the learned Government Pleader, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing the additional 5^th respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for allotment of halting place at one of the stations mentioned by the petitioner as noted above [(1) Chungam, (2) Old Bus stand, (3) Assumption Hospital Junction, (4) Municipal Office Junction, (5) Gandhi Junction]. Based on the recommendation of the additional 5^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent shall pass necessary orders permitting the halting place as recommended by the Traffic Regulatory Committee. The Traffic Regulatory Committee shall consider the request of the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Based on the recommendation of the Traffic Regulatory Committee the 3^rd respondent shall pass fresh orders as directed above within a period of 2 weeks from the date on which the recommendation of the Traffic Regulatory Committee is placed before him.

¶39

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶40

AMG

¶41

W.P (C) No.14620/2020

¶42

-5-

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14620/2020

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT SURGEON, TALUK HEADQUARTERS HOSPITAL, SULTHAN BATHERY.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN 31088/2018 DATED 30/10/2018.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PLACE CALLED ARMAD JUNCTION.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE WAYANAD DISTRICT AUTORIKSHAW MASDOOR SANGH, SULTHAN BATHERY UNION DATED 6/5/2019.
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT TO ONE SRI.M.J.MANOJ.

K.T. Pradeep, v. Sulthan Bathery Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

K.T. Pradeep, v. Sulthan Bathery Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayacharan Vs State Police Chief

Leela, Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Hendry Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Tomy Vs Mampad Grama Panchayat

Shahas P. Shahul Vs Debt Recovery Tribunal-Ii

Ramavarma Club Vs State of Kerala