High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-12-10Dismissed

Saleem C.K. v. Shaji V and Others

Case / Petition Number:RP.No.1203 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No.12420 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date: 2019-12-10
Court Decision / Holding: The review petition is dismissed. The court held that the TRA cannot be treated as an authority authorised under the MV Act to designate parking places, and the directive to remove the obstructive auto-rickshaw parking remains valid; Philip P. Mathew does not authorize broad roadside parking.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Saleem C.K.

Respondents

Shaji V, Proprieter Firdous Supermarket and Tasty Hotel, Pathappiriyam P. O., Edavanna, Malappuram - 676123
The Sub Inspector of Police, Edavanna Police Station, Malappuram - 676123
The District Police Chief, Malappuram - 676505
The Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram - 676505
Edavanna Grama Panchayat, represented by its Secretary, Edavanna P. O. - 676541
Traffic Regulatory Authority, Malappuram, represented by its Chairman, the Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram - 676505
Yasheed Noufal, S/O Kunchumuhammed, Alukkal House, Pathappiriyam P. O. - 676123
Muhammed Shameer, S/O Abdu, Rakeeb Manzil, Pathappiriyam P. O. - 676123
Muhammed Sajeer, Cheramal House, ChennaiKunnu, Pathappiriyam P. O. - 676123
Murshid, S/O Shaheed, Ottakandathil House, Pathappiriyam P. O. - 676123
Muhammed Shereef, S/O Mammad, Valiyapeedikakkal House, Pathappiriyam P. O., Malappuram District - 676123

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri P. Samsudin
• Sri M. Anuroop

Case Synopsis & Summary

The High Court of Kerala entertained a review petition filed by Saleem C.K., additional 11th respondent in WP(C) 12420/2019, challenging a judgment that allowed the writ petition filed by Shaji V, proprietor of a supermarket and a hotel in Edavanna, Malappuram, and directed police authorities to ensure that auto-rickshaws are not parked in front of the petitioner's establishments. The writ petition had found that auto-rickshaws were obstructing ingress and egress and that the parking location did not constitute an authorised stand under the Panchayat Raj Act. The review grounds alleged that Ext. R10(a) (a Traffic Regulatory Committee decision) permitted such parking and that a prior ruling (Philip P. Mathew v. Regional Transport Authority) suggested that road-margin parking of about 2 meters width could be permissible if it did not hinder vehicular entry or pedestrians. The judge concluded there was no merit in the review. It was held that under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, parking places can only be established by the State Government or its authorised authority; the TRA under Section 72(3) of the Kerala Police Act cannot confer parking authority. The court clarified that the cited Philip P. Mathew decision does not endorse general roadside parking and affirmed the earlier order directing removal of obstructive parking. The review petition was dismissed, leaving the writ-petition judgment intact.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 117Kerala Police Act, 2011 – Section 72(3)Panchayat Raj Act and rules thereunder

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The review petitioner contends that Ext. R10(a) (Traffic Regulatory Committee decision) authorized parking by the union and thus the petitioner was not entitled to an order for removal. He also relies on the decision in Philip P. Mathew v. Regional Transport Authority (and Others) to argue that parking on the road margin of about 2 meters width, if not obstructing vehicular entry or pedestrians, should be permissible. It is further contended that the Traffic Regulatory Committee cannot be construed as an authority authorised by the State Government under Section 117 MV Act for building parking places.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that the TRA under Section 72(3) of the Kerala Police Act cannot decide parking places under the MV Act, and the Court's order directing removal of obstructive parking was proper. The judgment sought to be reviewed is grounded on statutory provisions of the MV Act and the Kerala Police Act, and TRA decisions cannot contravene those provisions; parking spaces must be established by the Government or its authorised authority.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Philip P. Mathew and Another v. Regional Transport Authority and Others	2019 (4) KHC 490	Mentioned Only	The court references the Philip P. Mathew decision to explain that it does not support broad parking on road margins; it is not adopted as controlling authority for the present case.

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 Saleem C.K. v. Shaji V 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** **RP.No.1203 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 12420/2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12420/2019(B) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER/ADDITIONAL 11TH RESPONDENT:** **SALEEM C.K.** **AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED C. K., CHOORAKKUNNAN HOUSE, PATHAPIRIYAM P. O., EDAVANNA, PIN - 676 123, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, (PRESIDENT SAMYUKTHA AUTO THOZHILALI UNION, PATHAPPIRIYAM P. O., EDAVANNA, PIN - 676 123, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT)** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SRI.M.ANUROOP** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 10:** **1 SHAJI V, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. VEERAN, PROPRIETOR FIRDOUS SUPERMARKET AND TASTY HOTEL, VAYANASALA, PATHAPPIRIYAM, ERNAD CIRCLE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 123.** - **2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EDAVANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM - 676 123.** - **3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.** - **4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.** 2 R.P. No.1203 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No.12420 of 2019 - **5 EDAVANNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDAVANNA P. O. - 676 541, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** - **6 TRAFFIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.** - **7 YASHEED NOUFAL, S/O. KUNCHUMUHAMMED, ALUKKAL HOUSE, PATHAPPIRIYAM P. O. - 676 123, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** - **8 MUHAMMED SHAMEER, S/O. ABDU, RAKEEB MANZIL, PATHAPPIRIYAM P. O. - 676 123, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** - **9 MUHAMMED SAJEER, CHERAMAL HOUSE, CHENNAIKUNNU, PATHAPPIRIYAM P. O. - 676 123, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** - **10 MURSHID,** - **S/O. SHAHEED, OTTAKANDATHIL HOUSE, PATHAPPIRIYAM P. O. - 676 123, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** - **11 MUHAMED SHEREEF, S/O. MAMMAD, VALIYAPEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, PATHAPPIRIYAM P. O. , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676 123.** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** R.P. No.1203 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No.12420 of 2019 3 ## **R.P. No. 1203 of 2019** ## **in** ## **W.P.(C) No.12420 of 2019** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **O R D E R** The additional eleventh respondent in the writ petition seeks review of the judgment. The parties are referred to in the order as they appear in the writ petition, for convenience. 2. The petitioner is the proprietor of two establishments functioning within the limits of Edavanna Grama Panchayat, of which one is a supermarket and the other is a hotel. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition was concerning the unauthorised parking of auto-rickshaws in front of the establishments of the petitioner. This court found from the materials made available that the auto-rickshaws were being parked in front of the establishments of the petitioner in such a way as to obstruct the ingress and egress of the two establishments. This court also found that the area where the R.P. No.1203 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No.12420 of 2019 4 vehicles were being parked is not an authorised stand established by the Grama Panchayat in terms of the provisions contained in the Panchayat Raj Act and the rules made thereunder. The writ petition, in the circumstances, was allowed directing the Sub Inspector of Police concerned to ensure that auto-rickshaws are not parked in front of the establishments of the petitioner. 3. The review petitioner is the President of a trade union of auto-rickshaw divers in the area. He seeks review of the judgment on two grounds. The first ground is that autorickshaws were being parked in front of the establishments of the petitioner in terms of Ext.R10(a) decision taken by the Traffic Regulatory Committee and the petitioner, therefore, was not entitled to an order for removal of auto-rickshaws from that place. The second ground is that this court has held in **Philip P. Mathew and Another v. Regional Transport Authority** **and Others** [2019 (4) KHC 490] that parking of vehicles on the road margin having a width of approximately 2 meters, without 5 R.P. No.1203 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No.12420 of 2019 causing obstruction to vehicular entry to the properties on the side of the road and without causing obstruction to the pedestrians and other road users, cannot be objectionable. According to the review petitioner, auto-rickshaws were being parked in the road margin without causing any obstruction to the vehicular entry to the establishments on the side of the road and also to the pedestrians and other road users, and therefore, this court ought not have ordered removal of the same. 4. I find no substance in the grounds taken by the review petitioner. In terms of Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, only the State Government or any authority authorised by the State Government in this behalf are entitled to establish parking places. The case set out by the petitioner is that the Traffic Regulatory Committee constituted under Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 is to be construed as an authority authorised by the State Government under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the purpose referred to therein. The 6 R.P. No.1203 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No.12420 of 2019 Traffic Regulatory Committee constituted under Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act cannot be an authority authorised by the Government under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is only a Committee empowered to discharge the functions provided for under sub-section (3) of Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act and as clarified in the said sub section, its decisions shall not contravene any of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Needless to say that the Traffic Regulatory Committee cannot determine places where the motor vehicles are to be parked. Further, Ext.R10 (a) provides for parking of vehicles at the place referred to therein only in a manner not affecting the ingress and egress to the commercial establishments on the sides of the road. In terms of the judgment sought to be reviewed, this court only directed removal of auto-rickshaws parked in front of the establishments of the petitioner. 5. Coming to the ground taken by the review petitioner placing reliance on the decision of this court in **Philip.P. Mathew** , I must point out that a perusal of the said 7 R.P. No.1203 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No.12420 of 2019 judgment does not indicate that it has been held in the said case that parking of vehicles in the road margin having a width of approximately 2 meters can be permitted, if the same does not cause obstruction to the vehicular entry to the properties on the sides of the road. True that after having issued a direction to the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act to ensure strict compliance of the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 to prevent parking of any vehicles in front of the building of the petitioner referred to therein, it was made clear in the judgment that the same will not stand in the way of parking of the vehicles on the road margin having a width of approximately 2 meters, without causing any obstructions to vehicle entries to the petitioner's residential buildings and without causing obstruction to the pedestrians and other road users. The said clarification can be understood as having one rendered in the facts of that case. Further, the fact that no vehicles shall be parked in any road causing hindrance to the ingress and egress of the properties on either R.P. No.1203 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No.12420 of 2019 8 side of the road has been upheld in the said case as well. In the said view of the matter, I do not find any error in the judgment sought to be reviewed, warranting interference in exercise of the review jurisdiction of this court. The review petition, in the circumstances, is without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. **Sd/-** **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** YKB 9 R.P. No.1203 of 2019 in W.P.(C) No.12420 of 2019 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1** **TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE UNION.** **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.8.2019 IN WP(C) NO.24603/2018.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE**