Disposed

V.Rani v. the District Collector

Madras HC1 Oct 2019WP(MD)/19760/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench observed that auto drivers are causing nuisance via unauthorized stands. It directed the Tahsildar to ensure all auto rickshaws in the area are removed before allowing the rival associations to discuss a solution, emphasizing that drivers have no vested right to park on public roads.

What did the court decide?

Directed all auto rickshaws in the area to be removed forthwith before any discussion between the associations.

V.Rani Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.10.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.19760 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD).No.17730 of 2019

V.Rani

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶12

3.The Tahsildhar, Tahsildar Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶13

4.The Municipal Commissioner, Paramakudi Municipal Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶14

5.The District Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram,

¶15

Ramanathapuram District.

¶16

6.The Inspector of Police,

¶17

Town Police Station, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶18

7.A.Boominathan, President,

¶19

Arulmighu Muthu Mariyamman Auto Urimaiyalargal Sangam, Bus Stand, Paramakudi Town, Ramanathapuram District.

¶20

(7^th respondent is impleaded as per the order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of this Court, dated 01.10.2019 in WMP(MD)NO.17730 OF 2019)

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

¶23

Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to remove the encroachment for unauthorised auto stand made by the union of auto drivers in the name and style of “Shree Arulmighu Muthumari Amman Auto Urimiyalargal Sangam” and to take appropriate action against the auto drivers, who were causing nuisance to the public.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Bharathi For R1 to R6 : Mr.A.Muthu Karuppan Additional Government Pleader

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

( Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.)

¶27

Heard Mr.S.Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Muthu Karuppan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 6.

¶28

The petitioner seeks for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 6 to remove the encroachment of unauthorised auto stand made by the Union of auto drivers in the name and style of “Shree Arulmighu Muthumari Amman Auto Urimiyalargal Sangam” and to take appropriate action against the auto drivers, who were causing nuisance to the public.

¶29

At the first instance, we thought that the petitioner has come forward with a genuine grievance stating that a group of auto rickshaw owners / drivers are parking the autos by blocking the free ingress and egress to the bus stand and causing great inconvenience to the public, since the road is already a narrow one.

¶30

In terms of the directions issued by us on 16.09.2019, the petitioner has filed an application to implead the Association, which is running the auto stand near the bus stand complex. We also directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to get instructions from the official respondents.

¶31

The stand taken by the official respondents, more particularly, the counter affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Circle reveals the true state of affairs and shows that the petitioner is none other than a person, who has established an auto stand under the name and style of Bhagath Singh Auto Sangam and the newly impleaded respondent is the other Sangam called as Arulmighu Muthu Mariyamman Auto Urimaiyalargal Sangam. Thus, the police officials have taken a clear and categorical stand that it is an inter-association rivalry and therefore, we could have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been well justified in rejecting the prayer sought for in this writ petition by not treating it as a public interest litigation, but a

¶32

¶33

personal interest litigation. However, what disturbed our mind is that despite a Peace Committee Meeting convened by the police authorities, no amicable solution was arrived at and there are complaints lodged against each other, which may ultimately lead to a case and counter case. The police authority have informed the learned Additional Government Pleader that now, the Tahsildar, Paramakudi is going to conduct a Peace Committee Meeting. We failed to understand as to why the authorities should appease the auto drivers and owners, who were granted permit to operate their auto rickshaws for public convenience. If the owners of the auto rickshaws or drivers do not have any vested right to ply their vehicles, because unless they have any valid permit to ply the vehicle, they cannot do so. The Members of both the Sangam have failed to keep in mind that they exist for the purpose of public travelling and their convenience is paramount. Therefore, we are of the considered view that if the the Tahsildar, Paramakudi has to hold discussion with the two Associations, then, at the first instance, all the auto rickshaws in the entire area including the auto rickshaws operated and floated by both the Sangam shall be forthwith be removed. Only after all the auto rickshaws are removed, then alone the Tahsildar, Paramakudi shall permit the parties to appear before him for discussion.

¶34

We are conscious of the fact that several auto rickshaw owners do public service, operate at free of cost for taking pregnant women to the hospitals, conduct charitable activities, have a mobile library in the auto, provide good drinking water to the customers etc. But those are all few exception to the larger section of auto owners and drivers.

¶35

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi is directed to deploy adequate force to ensure that the officials are able to remove the auto rickshaws from the entire area. As we have pointed out that the owners of the Auto rickshaws and drivers are not vested with any right to ply their autos in public roads as they are plying the same with express permission subject to condition that they do not have any right to claim that they will park the auto rickshaws in a particular place. We reiterate that the auto rickshaws exist for public convenience. Unfortunately, the auto rickshaw owners / drivers and the Sangam of Auto rickshaws have forgotten this.

¶36

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶39

// True Copy //

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶41

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶42

akv

¶43

¶44

To 1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The Tahsildhar, Tahsildar Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 4.The Municipal Commissioner, Paramakudi Municipal Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 5.The District Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. 6.The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. +1CC TO MR.S.BHARATH, Advocate Sr. No. 91090 W.P.(MD).No.19760 of 2019 01.10.2019 SRK (CO) TR(10.10.2019) 4P 8C

¶45

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

V.Rani v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Rani 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Kamalan, S/O.Nesamani, Vs the District Collector

K.Selvakumar, Vs the District Collector

C.Kala Padmabala, Vs the Authorized Officer

S.Kalavathi Vs The District Collector

S.Nagarajan, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Vethika Mohan Vs the District Collector