Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaDivision BenchWrit petitions disposed of with directions ensu...

Lorry Transport Agencies Union (A.I.T.U.C.) v. Kozhikode District Lorry Owners' Association and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 29503 of 2007(K)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. Balakrishnan Nair
  • M.C. Hari Rani
Judgment Date
2008-07-15
Court Decision / Holding
The court disposed of the writ petitions, affirming that a turn system can be beneficial if implemented by consensus but cannot be enforced by coercion. It directed that if a vehicle is engaged outside Ext. P1 and is obstructed, the affected party may inform the Station House Officer, who shall remove the obstruction. Respondents 5–12 and 15 were directed to issue instructions to their subordinates to take prompt action on such complaints. The court noted that the decision in Suresh Kumar v. Ranjan governs and extended similar directions to W.P. Nos. 28692, 32006 of 2007 and 19352 of 2008, disposing of them accordingly.
Final Disposition
Writ petitions disposed of with directions ensuring freedom to operate vehicles and police protection against obstructions, consistent with the Suresh Kumar v. Ranjan precedent.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Lorry Transport Agencies Union (A.I.T.U.C.), South Beach Road, Kozhikode, represented by its General Secretary, K.P. Abdul Razak

Respondents

  • Kozhikode District Lorry Owners' Association, A.M. Complex, Cherootty Road, Kozhikode
  • Lorry Transport Agencies Union (CITU), Registration No.12/8/1988, Gayathri Buildings, Cherootty, Calicut
  • P.M. Mohammed Ali, President, Kozhikode District Lorry Owners' Association, A.M. Complex, Cherootty Road, Kozhikode
  • V. Venugopal, District President, Lorry Transport Agencies Union (C.I.T.U.), Registration No.12/8/1988, Gayathri Buildings, Cherootty, Calicut
  • Secretary to Government, Kerala State, Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, Trivandrum
  • Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Trivandrum
  • District Superintendent of Police (Calicut Rural), Badagara
  • District Superintendent of Police, Wayannad
  • District Superintendent of Police, Kannur
  • District Superintendent of Police, Palakkad
  • District Superintendent of Police, Thrissur
  • Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam
  • Circle Inspector of Police, Nagaram Police Station, Kozhikode
  • Sub Inspector of Police, Nagaram Police Station, Kozhikode
  • City Police Commissioner, Kozhikode
  • Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi, Kozhikode District Committee, Bank Road, Kozhikode
  • District Collector, Kozhikode (ADDL.R17)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri M.P. Madhavankutty

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri M.K. Damodaran (Sr.)
  • • Sri P.K. Vijayamohanan
  • • Sri P.S. Pradeep
  • • Sri P. Sanjay
  • • Sri A. Parvathi Menon
  • • Sri M. Muhammed Shafi
  • • Sri K.V. Gopinath Nair
  • • Sri Prasad Chandran
  • • Sri Benjamin Paul

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the turn system introduced under Ext. P1 by the Kozhikode District Lorry Owners’ Association and allied bodies, which requires lorry bookings to be routed through a convenor and restricts customers to engage lorries of the turn system, rather than freely selecting a lorry or owner. The petitioner, a union of lorry transport agents (not a party to Ext. P1), contends that the businessmen seeking lorry services are also not parties, and that enforcement of the turn system by force would infringe fundamental business freedom and customer choice. It cites incidents of obstructions to its members’ lorries by supporters of respondents 1 to 4, supported by Exts. P4 and P5, and points to a settlement Ext. P6 and a similar judicial stance in Ext. P7 (Suresh Kumar v. Ranjan). The petition seeks police protection from respondents 6–15 to safeguard the petitioners’ members from illegal action and to allow free movement of goods. The court, while acknowledging potential benefits of a consensual turn system, holds that no one can coerce others to participate or restrict their mobility. Relying on Suresh Kumar v. Ranjan, it directs that if a vehicle is obstructed outside the turn system, the Station House Officer must remove the obstruction, with prompt action by police officers. The petitions of other connected writs are disposed of accordingly.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner-union contends Ext. P1 creates a compulsory turn system for lorry bookings, to which its members are not parties and which also captures customers who desire freedom to hire lorries of their choice. It cites violations of freedom to operate and to choose lorries and points to incidents of obstruction (Exts. P4 and P5) by supporters of respondents, despite the existence of Ext. P6 settlement. The petition relies on Ext. P7 (Suresh Kumar v. Ranjan) to urge that the turn system may be permissible in principle but cannot be forced through coercion. It seeks police protection from respondents 6–15 to ensure safe, unimpeded movement of goods, and asks for directions requiring prompt action by police to prevent violence and coercion against petitioners’ members, and to enable a voluntary, consensual framework for a turn system if such is formed by agreement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue maintainability issues (unregistered association), practical difficulties for police protection, and that they have no involvement in the alleged violence; they emphasize law-and-order concerns, citing multiple cases and counter-cases. They contend that the turn-system’s enforcement cannot be achieved by force and that the petitioners’ request for protection is not a straightforward administrative matter. They emphasize that a significant number of cases and counter-cases exist and that the petitioners’ claims require careful, restrained intervention by authorities. They submit that the turn system, even if beneficial in theory, should not be imposed via coercion or extralegal pressure, and that any action must respect the rights of customers and owners alike within the law. They rely on the government/respondent authorities’ affidavits and the counter-affidavits to show the complexity of maintaining order and ensuring the safety of all stakeholders.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Suresh Kumar v. Ranjan2005(3) KLT 531PositiveThe court expressly follows this decision, stating that while a consensual turn system may be beneficial, coercive enforcement cannot be allowed; the directions issued in Suresh Kumar v. Ranjan are adopted and applied.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Lorry Transport Agencies Union (A.I.T.U.C.) v. Kozhikode District Lorry Owners' Association and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI** **TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930** **WP(C).No. 29503 of 2007(K)** **--------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **------------** **LORRY TRANSPORT AGENCIES UNION (A.I.T.U.C.), SOUTH BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, K.P.ABDUL RAZAK.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY** **RESPONDENTS:** **-------------** **1. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT LORRY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, A.M.COMPLEX, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, K.K.HAMZA.** **2. LORRY TRANSPORT AGENCIES UNION (CITU), REGISTRATION NO.12/8/1988, GAYATHRI BUILDINGS, CHEROOTTY, CALICUT, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, P.ALIKOYA.** **3. P.M.MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT LORRY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, A.M.COMPLEX, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE.** **4. V.VENUGOPAL, DISTRICT PRESIDENT, LORRY TRANSPORT AGENCIES UNION (C.I.T.U.), REGISTRATION NO.12/8/1988, GAYATHRI BUILDINGS, CHEROOTTY, CALICUT.** **5. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, KERALA STATE, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.** ## **W.P.(C) No.29503/2007** **6. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM.** **7. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (CALICUT RURAL), BADAGARA.** ## **8. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANAD.** ## **9. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR.** ## **10. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD.** **11. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR.** ## **12. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM.** **13. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAGARAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE.** **14. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAGARAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE.** **15. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE.** **16. KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT COMMITTEE, VYAPARA BHAVAN, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY K.P.SREEDHARAN.** **ADDL.R17: THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. (IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.19.2.2008)** **BY ADV. SRI.AYPE JOSEPH FOR R.1TOR3 SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN FOR R2 SRI.P.S.PRADEEP FOR R2 SRI.P.SANJAY FOR R4 SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON FOR R4 SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI FOR R4 SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R16 SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN FOR ADDL.R17 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R13** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) Nos. 28692, 32006/2007 & 19352/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **W.P.(C) No.29503/2007** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXTS:** - **EXT.P1: COPY OF TURN SYSTEM.** - **EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN 'mATHRUBHOOMI' DAILY DATED 15.09.2007.** - **EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN 'MALAYALA MANORAMA' DAILY.** - **EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.21.09.2007 MADE BEFORE 15TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.07.2007.** - **EXT.P6: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT.25.09.2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.13846/2005** ## **RESPONDEN'S EXTS:** - **EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.6.10.2007 SUBMITTED BY 7 PERSONS MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE WRIT PETITION TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.4.10.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE 7 PERSONS MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 2 EXCEPT THE LAST PERSON ABDUL SAMAD T.K., TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.R2(c): COPY OF THE MINUTES SHOWING THE PARTICIPATION OF THE PERSONS EXCEPT ABDUL SAMAD T.K., IN THE MEETING OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNION.** - **EXT.R2(d): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT.16.10.2007 SWORN TO BY T.KUNHALI** - **EXT.R2(e): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT.16.10.2007 SWORN TO BY R.SANTHOSHKUMAR.** - **EXT.R2(f): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT.16.10.2007 SWORN TO BY T. BEERAN KOYA.** - **EXT.R2(g): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT.16.10.2007 SWORN TO BY A.MANZOOR.** ## **W.P.(C) No.29503/2007** - **EXT.R2(h): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT.16.10.2007 SWORN TO BY T.ABDUL KALAM** - **EXT.R2(i): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT.16.10.2007 SWORN TO BY T.ABDUL LATHEEF** - **EXT.R2(j): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DT.16.10.2007 SWORN TO BY T. UNUS ALI.** - **EXT.R2(k): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE MOTOR AND ENGINEERING WORKERS UNION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT UNIT, LORRY SECTION DT.15.10.2007.** - **EXT.R2(l): COPY OF THE ORDER DT.10.9.2007 IN M.C.NO,206/2007 OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE.** - **EXT.R2(m): COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DT.21.9.2007 ISSUED BY THE ORGANISATIONS SHOWING REG.NO.236/86.** - **EXT.R2(n): LEGIBLE COPY OF EXT.P1 AGREEMENT.** - **EXT.R2(o): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FROM THE CONVENER UNDER EXT.P1 TO THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (NORTH) WITH COPY TO THE 15TH RESPONDENT AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS OF POLICE.** - **EXT.R2(p): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ON 19.9.2007 WITH COPY TO THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE.** - **EXT.R16(a): COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, DT.21.9.2007.** - **EXT.R4(a): COPY OF THE FIR93/2007 OF TOWN STATION, KOZHIKODE** - **EXT.R4(b): COPY OF THE FIR124/2007 OF TOWN STATION, KOZHIKODE** - **EXT.R4(c): COPY OF THE FIR127/2007 OF TOWN STATION, KOZHIKODE EXT.R4(d): COPY OF THE FIR132/2007 OF TOWN STATION, KOZHIKODE,** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE.** **K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) Nos.29503, 28692, 32006 OF 2007 & 19352 OF 2008** **----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 15[th ] day of July, 2008** ## **J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~** ## Balakrishnan Nair, J. ## W.P.(C) No.29503 OF 2007 The petitioner is a union of Lorry Transport Agents. Their members function as lorry booking agents. They arrange lorries for the parties, who are desirous of getting lorries for transporting their goods. The respondents 1 to 4 have introduced a turn system for the booking of lorries under Ext.P1 agreement. The petitioner submits, its members are not the parties to Ext.P1. The businessmen who engage the lorries for transporting of their goods are also not parties to Ext.P1. 2. After the introduction of turn system, as provided in Ext.P1, a businessman or an individual, who wants to engage a lorry has to approach the convenor of the turn and he will provide the lorry required for transporting the goods. In other words, a person who wants to engage a lorry for his business cannot opt the lorry or the owner of his preference. If, he goes W.P.(C) No.29503/2007& connected cases. 2 for engaging the lorries of his choice, operation of such lorries are obstructed by the muscle men under the respondents 1 to 4, it is submitted. 3. The petitioner points out the incidents in which the lorries booked by its members were obstructed by members of respondents 2 and 4. Ext.P4 is a representation filed by them before the police pointing out such incidents on 21.9.2007. They have also produced Ext.P5 representation filed by the Malabar Chamber of Commerce pointing out the inconveniences caused by the turn system to their members. 4. The petitioner submits that, to get over the shackles under Ext.P1, in engaging lorries, a settlement has been signed between the petitioner Union with the Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Samithi and also some of the lorry owners. A copy of it is produced as Ext.P6. The petitioners relied on Ext.P7 judgment rendered in a case, the facts of which are similar to the case on hand. The petitioner points out that the said decision is reported in **Suresh Kumar v. Ranjan** [2005(3) KLT 531]. The petitioner, W.P.(C) No.29503/2007& connected cases. 3 in the light of the above facts pleaded, prayed for a direction to the respondents 6 to 15 to provide adequate and sufficient police protection to the petitioner association and its members against the illegal actions of the respondents 1 to 4 and their supporters. 5. The respondents 1 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit resisting the prayers in the writ petition. The respondents 2 and 4 have filed separate counter affidavits. On behalf of the official respondents, the 13[th] respondent has filed a statement pointing out that, as a result of implementation of the turn system and the counter system attempted by the petitioner under Ext.P5, certain law and order problems have arisen. Six cases and six counter cases have been registered against the parties. 6. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the party respondents pointed out that the writ petition filed by an unregistered association is not maintainable. They pointed out that it may be not practically possible for the police to grant protection as prayed for by the petitioners. They also pointed out that they have no involvement W.P.(C) No.29503/2007& connected cases. 4 in the alleged violence raised against the members of the petitioner association. In fact, they are the victims of attack by the members and supporters of the petitioner. 7. We are not impressed by the technical contentions raised by the party respondents, especially, when this writ petition is heard along with a batch of writ petitions, in many of which, the affected persons are the writ petitioners. 8. The point raised by the petitioner is covered in its favour by the decision of this Court in **Suresh Kumar v. Ranjan** [2005(3)KLT 531]. For the convenience of lorry owners, their workers and the customers of the lorries, some sort of turn system may be beneficial. The parties can come to a consensus and may implement a turn system. But, the same cannot be enforced by use of force against who are not willing to cooperate with the same. Every citizen should be conceded freedom to operate his vehicle according to his wishes and a customer should be conceded freedom to engage lorry of his own choice. No one can thrust any conditions on them. W.P.(C) No.29503/2007& connected cases. 5 Therefore, we are inclined to give the same directions issued by this Court in the above reported decision. If the members of the petitioner association engages a vehicle without following the turn system introduced as per Ext.P1, and, if that vehicle is obstructed by anyone, the affected person concerned may inform the concerned Station House Officer. In that event, the Station House Officer shall remove the obstruction. The respondents 5 to 12 and 15 shall issue necessary instructions to their subordinates to take prompt action, if any complaint is received in this regard. ## W.P.(C) Nos.28692, 32006 OF 2007 & 19352 OF 2008 These writ petitions are filed by the lorry owners/ lorry transport agents. The point raised in these writ petitions are covered by the judgment in W.P.(C) No.29503/2007 and also the reported decision of this Court in **Suresh Kumar v. Ranjan** [2005(3)KLT 531]. Accordingly, if any vehicle, which is engaged by the petitioners is obstructed, they may inform the Station House Officer concerned. In that event, the said Officer shall W.P.(C) No.29503/2007& connected cases. 6 remove the obstruction. The superior police officers shall ensure that prompt action is taken by their subordinates, in this regard. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. **(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)** **(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)** **ps**