Sebastian V M v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/21ST MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 31063 of 2014 (G) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
----------------------
1. SEBASTIAN V M, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.MATHAI V.K., VIRIPPAMATTATHIL HOUSE MOOLANKAVU P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY.
2. E.V.SURESH, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, ELAYATTUM VEETIL, PAZHUPATHOOR P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY.
3. K.R.KRISHNA PRASAD, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.RAMANKUTTY, KILAYIL HOUSE, POOMALA P.O.
CHETTIMOOLA, SULTHAN BATHERY.
4. K.SAJIR, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.AZEEZ, KOYILATH MALAYIL HOUSE, KUPPADI P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY.
5. P.K.ISMAIL, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.EBRAHIM, PALLIKANDY HOUSE, BEENACHI P.O.
SULTHAN BATHERY.
6. JAYFAR ALI, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.SAITHALAVI, VERANGAL HOUSE, KUPPADI P.O.
SULTHAN BATHERY.
7. V.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, VENGALATH HOUSE, CHULLIYODE P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY.
8. SAJAN P.N., AGED 47 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, POOVAKKOTUPARANBIL HOUSE, KAIPPANCHERRY SULTHAN BATHERY.
9. ISSAC N.P., AGED 50 YEARS S/O.PETER, NADUVILEDATH HOUSE, KUPPADI P.O.
SULTHAN BATHERY.
10. HARRIS BABU, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.BAHSEER, VALAPPIL HOUSE, KUPPADI P.O.
SULTHAN BATHERY.
....2/-
..2..
WP(C).No. 31063 of 2014 (G) -----------------------------------------
11. BAIJU, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.UNNI, 4/677, PANNANKOTTATHIL HOUSE SULTHAN BATHERY.
12. JIJO T.BABY, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.BABY, THOBRAYIL HOUSE, CHETHALAYAM P.O.
SULTHAN BATHERY.
13. M.J.SEBASTIAN, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, MUNJELIL HOUSE, KUPPADI P.O.
SULTHAN BATHERY.
14. B.G.KISHORE, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.GOPALAN, BHOOMIKUZHIYIL HOUE, CHETHALAYAM P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY
15. M.M.SHEMEER, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMADALI, MUNDANTHODI HOUSE, CHETHALAYAM P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY.
16. RATHEESH C.P., AGED 32 YEARS S/O.KARIYATHAN, CHENNIKKUPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOMALA P.O. MANICHIRA, SULTHAN BATHERY.
17. RATHEESH T.BALAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, CHOORIMALAYIL HOUSE, KOLAGAPPARA P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY.
18. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.ALI, 467 A, KARAT HOUSE KUPPADI P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY.
19. MOHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, 142 NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE BEENACHI P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY.
20. HAMZA, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, MANGALANKADAN HOUSE, PAZHUPATHOOR P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY.
21. SASI, AGED 27 YEARS S/O.RAMANKUTTY, 5/237, PARAMUKALIL HOUSE NENMENI, THOVARIMALA P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY.
22. VINOTH, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.JOHN, VELLACHAL HOUSE, BEENACHI P.O.
SULTHAN BATHERY.
23. NOUSHAD, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.ABDUL REHIMAN, 3/111 A, KARIMKUDIKKAL PAZHUPATHOOR P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY.
....3/-
..3..
WP(C).No. 31063 of 2014 (G) -----------------------------------------
24. ABDUL RAHEEM, S/O.SAITHALAVI, 673, MANAYANGAD HOUSE SULTHAN BATHERY.
25. SHOUKATHALI, AGED 26 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, 7/629 E, THENGUMTHODIYIL HOUSE KOLIYADI, NENMENI P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY.
26. PAPPACHAN, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.MATHAI, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, KUPPADI P.O.
SULTHAN BATHERY.
27. JOBISH, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, AKKARAYIL HOUSE, CHETHALAYAM P.O. SULTHAN BATHERY.
BY ADVS.SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673 592.
3. SULTHAN BATHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SULTHAN BATHERY WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673 592.
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673 592.
5. SULTHAN BATHERY AUTO RICKSHAW CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, K.L.KRISHNAN S/O.NARAYANAN, KALLUMOLAYIL HOUSE, KIDANGANAD P.O. PANAYAMBAM, SULTHAN BATHERY WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673 592.
* ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED
6. THE RTA SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD.
ADDL.R6 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER JUDGMENT DATED 10.02.2015.
R1,2,3,6 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ
WP(C).No. 31063 of 2014 (G) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1:
TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S VEHICLE KL-73-438 P2:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 12/8/2013 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER P3:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 02/8/2013 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER P4:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 22/10/2013 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER P5:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 30/11/2013 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER P6:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARTRIAGE PERMIT DATED 21/10/2013 ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER P7:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 23/10/2013 ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER P8:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 13/9/2013 ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER P9:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 27/9/2013 ISSUED TO THE 8TH PETITIONER P10:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 4/6/2013 ISSUED TO THE 9TH PETITIONER P11:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 18/1/2014 ISSUED TO THE 9TH PETITIONER P12:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 23/1/2014 ISSUED TO THE 11TH PETITIONER P13:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 27/4/2013 ISSUED TO THE 12TH PETITIONER P14:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 2/8/2013 ISSUED TO THE 13TH PETITIONER P15:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 8/10/2013 ISSUED TO THE 14TH PETITIONER P16:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 30/11/2013 ISSUED TO THE 15TH PETITIONER PJ ....2/-
..2..
WP(C).No. 31063 of 2014 (G) ----------------------------------------- P17:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 30/01/2014 ISSUED TO THE 16TH PETITIONER P18:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 13/9/2013 ISSUED TO THE 17TH PETITIONER P19:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 7/01/2014 ISSUED TO THE 18TH PETITIONER P20:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 4/8/2014 ISSUED TO THE 19TH PETITIONER P21:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 8/4/2014 ISSUED TO THE 20TH PETITIONER P22:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 29/4/2014 ISSUED TO THE 21ST PETITIONER P23:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 7/01/2014 ISSUED TO THE 22TH PETITIONER P24:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 25/1/2014 ISSUED TO THE 23RD PETITIONER P25:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 4/01/2014 ISSUED TO THE 24TH PETITIONER P26:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 25/08/2014 ISSUED TO THE 25TH PETITIONER P27:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 7/08/2013 ISSUED TO THE 26TH PETITIONER P28:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 18/02/2014 ISSUED TO THE 27TH PETITIONER P29:
TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 20/12/2011 ISSUED TO ANIL T.R.
P30:
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5/8/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE FOUR WHEEL TAXI OWNERS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT.
P31:
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE FOUR WHEEL TAXI OWNERS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE R3 P32:
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/8/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE FOUR WHEEL TAXI OWNERS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE R4 P33:
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/8/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE FOUR WHEEL TAXI OWNERS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PJ ...3/-
..3..
WP(C).No. 31063 of 2014 (G) ----------------------------------------- P34:
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22/9/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE FOUR WHEEL TAXI OWNERS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
P35:
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22/9/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE FOUR WHEEL TAXI OWNERS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
P36:
TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23/8/2014 IN WPC NO.19450/2014 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
P37:
TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/11/2014 IN WPC NO.29653/2014 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL.
/ TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
===================== W.P.(C) No.31063 of 2014 - G ====================== Dated this the 10th day of February, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners have purchased Tata Iris Autorickshaws (Auto Taxi) and obtained contract carriage permits, as evidenced from Exts.P2 to P27. The grievance is that, despite the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority having specified parking place at Sultan Bathery, the petitioners are directed to park at a distant place called Manikunnu, wherein, except the Court Complex, there is absolutely no activity. The petitioners seek identification of a suitable parking place within the Sultan Bathery town itself. Though "Sultan Bathery" has been specified as the parking place, the petitioners are prevented from parking any where inside the town for reason of the objection of the 5th respondent.
2. The learned Government Pleader who appears
W.P.(C) No.31063 of 2014 - G for respondents 1, 2 and 4 submits on instructions from the 4th respondent that, it is the Panchayath, who has arrived at a decision to permit the petitioners to park at Manikunnu. However, no order is said to have been communicated to the 4th respondent also.
3. In such circumstance, the writ petition itself was taken up and the petitioners' Counsel and learned Government Pleader were heard.
4. The issue with respect to parking of Auto taxies crop up intermittently all over the State; which is objected to by the Autorickshaw drivers. The Auto taxies are considerably of higher purchase value but have the same fares as Autorickshaws. Many of the persons, who purchase it, maintain it for eking out their livelihood by plying the same as a contract carriage. The Autorickshaws too are plied for the very same purpose and the Autorickshaws cannot be removed from the road on introduction of a newer model of Auto taxies nor can the
W.P.(C) No.31063 of 2014 - G Auto taxies be interdicted from plying in the area where the Autorickshaws are plied. Both should adopt an attitude of "live and let live"; and endeavour to eke out a livelihood in the available circumstances and not by restricting operations of one or the other.
5. One other aspect which assumes significance is that when such restrictions are attempted, the authorities do not look at the convenience of the general public and are led by extraneous considerations. Auto taxies definitely is an improvisation on the Autorickshaws and is a more convenient mode of public transport. However, that is not to say that either of these should be elected to be restricted or allowed to be plied in exclusion of the other.
6. Again when such disputes arise, they come to this Court only since, the authorities under the various enactments as also the Local Self Government Institutions take a recalcitrant attitude and refuse to even attempt a conciliated settlement between the two parties. Herein,
W.P.(C) No.31063 of 2014 - G despite notice being issued to the 3rd respondent, the Local Self Government Institution, none appear before this Court, for reasons best known to the 3rd respondent. The 5th respondent an Autorickshaw Co-ordination Committee, probably has not appeared, since, they are against the prayers sought for and can by their muscle power alone resist the claim of the petitioners. However, such a situation is not contemplated in a country where rule of law prevails. The Local Self Government Institution, the 3rd respondent also cannot abdicate its powers, statutorily conferred.
7. Notice having been served on the 3rd respondent, this Court definitely would issue directions to the 3rd respondent, who has to consider the application of the petitioners, produced at Ext.P30 in a reasonable manner after hearing the representatives of the petitioner and the representatives of the 5th respondent; and specify a parking place for the Auto taxies, even at the parking spot,
W.P.(C) No.31063 of 2014 - G identified for Autorickshaws. The Local Self Government Institution and the RTA could also, with the help of the Station House Officer having jurisdiction over the particular parking area, insist on a system being maintained wherein, alternatively an Autorickshaw and Auto taxi is allowed to be rented/hired by the general public. However, what is required for such a measure is the will on the part of the authorities, which cannot be substituted by a mere direction from this Court.
8. In any event, for the present, the 3rd respondent after hearing the representatives of the petitioners and the 5th respondent would take a decision in the matter and intimate the decision to the RTA, who is the authority to decide on parking places under Section 344 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, framed under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. To facilitate such consideration by the RTA, "The RTA, Sultan Bathery, Wayanad" is suo motu impleaded as the additional 6th
W.P.(C) No.31063 of 2014 - G respondent. The Registry shall carry out impleadment before issuance of certified copies. The directions herein above shall be complied with by the 3rd respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and the additional 6th respondent shall convene a meeting of the petitioners as also the representatives of the 5th respondent and arrive at a settlement as directed herein.
With the above directions, the writ petition would stand disposed of.
Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A to Judge