High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of in terms of direction...

Shyamlal.T v City Police Commissioner Kozhikode City; The Station House Officer Chevayoor Police Station; Dinesh Kumar.O.P; Nousheed; Rathakesh; Riyas; Yoosuf; ADDL.R8. Traffic Regulatory Committee Kozhikode Municipal Corporation

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C)No.6996 of 2025
Neutral Citation:2025:KER:28750

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C.S.Dias
Judgment Date
2025-04-03
Court Decision / Holding
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: (i) The petitioner is permitted to file an application under Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act before the additional 8th respondent within a week. (ii) If such application is filed, the 8th respondent shall consider it in accordance with law and expeditiously, within one month, after hearing the petitioner and the respondents. (iii) Until such time orders are passed on the application, the interim order dated 21.03.2025 will remain in force. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of in terms of directions (i)-(iii) above; interim order to remain in force until decision on Section 72 application.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Shyamlal.T

Respondents

  • The City Police Commissioner Kozhikode City, Kozhikode District
  • The Station House Officer Chevayoor Police Station, Kozhikode District
  • Dinesh Kumar.O.P S/O Sreedharan, Pookkattuparambil House, Marikunnu P.O., Kozhikode District
  • Nousheed S/O Najeeb, Kottin edath House, Marikunnu P.O., Kozhikode District
  • Rathakesh S/O Velayudhan, Pulparambil House, Marikunnu P.O., Kozhikode District
  • Riyaz S/O ABDULLA, Tharekkattill House, Parambil Bazar P.O., Kozhikode District
  • Yoosuf Ocherimeethal House, Cheruvatta, Parambil P.O., Kozhikode District
  • ADDL.R8. TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, NEAR AKASHAVANI, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673032

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. Pranav

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Government Pleader
  • • Standing Counsel for the Additional 8th Respondent

Case Synopsis & Summary

The writ petition challenges obstruction to plying an auto rickshaw (KL-11-BV-4874) within the Kozhikode Corporation limits, despite a valid permit and registration. The petitioner, Shyamlal.T, seeks adequate police protection under Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 to operate within the municipal limits, contending that respondents 3–7 and their men obstruct him in the course of his business. He has filed Ext.P3, a complaint to the 2nd respondent (police) but claims no actionable relief has been provided. The respondents contend that the remedy lies within the regulatory framework established by Section 72 and the Kerala Traffic Regulatory setup, and advocate filing a complaint with the 8th respondent, the Traffic Regulatory Committee (TRC) of the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation. The judgment relies on this Court’s consistent view, citing Sreekumaran Nair T.S. vs Neyyattinkara Municipality (2023 KHC OnLine 10345) and Noushad M. and others vs State of Kerala and others (2019 (2) KHC 562) to hold that Section 72 matters fall within regulatory processes at the TRC level, not blanket police protection. The Court directs the petitioner to file an application under Section 72 with the 8th respondent within a week, to be heard and decided expeditiously within a month, and holds that an interim order dated 21.03.2025 will remain in force until a decision is rendered. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of these directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 72, Kerala Police Act, 2011Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988)Kerala Road Safety Act, 2007 (Act 8 of 2007)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner seeks police protection to operate his city-permitted auto rickshaw within Kozhikode Corporation. He asserts a valid permit (Ext.P2) and registration (Exhibit P1) authorize plying within municipal limits and alleges obstruction by respondents 3–7 despite Ext.P2. He urges action under Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act to secure his livelihood and contends the absence of relief from the police compels judicial intervention. He relies on the existing regulatory framework as a remedy to ensure safe, regulated operation without public disruption.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that preventative and regulatory authority lies with the Traffic Regulatory Committee under Section 72, and that the applicant should file a complaint with the 8th respondent. The police are not to grant personal protection independent of the regulatory process. They emphasize compliance with the City permit and argue that obstruction issues must be processed through the TRC with due hearing and due process rather than through a writ mandamus for police protection.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sreekumaran Nair T.S. vs. Neyyattinkara Municipality2023 KHC OnLine 10345PositiveCourt cites this categoric declaration of law on the applicability of Section 72 in traffic regulation matters.
Noushad M. and others vs. State of Kerala and others2019 (2) KHC 562PositiveDivision Bench decision relied upon by the above decision to rule the roost on Section 72's applicability.

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 Shyamlal.T v City Police Commissioner Kozhikode City; The Station House Officer Chevayoor Police Station; Dinesh Kumar.O.P; Nousheed; Rathakesh; Riyas; Yoosuf; ADDL.R8. Traffic Regulatory Committee Kozhikode Municipal Corporation and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

``` 2025:KER:28750 ``` ``` W.P.(C)No.6996 of 2025 ``` 1 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 6996 OF 2025`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SHYAMLAL.T AGED 27 YEARS S/O.BABURAJ.T, THAYYIL HOUSE, VADAKKEPPURATH, CHELAVOOR.P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673571 ``` ## **`BY ADV PRANAV`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER KOZHIKODE CITY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673004`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHEVAYOOR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673012`** - **`3 DINESH KUMAR.O.P S/O SREEDHARAN, POOKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARIKUNNU P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673012`** ``` 4NOUSHEED S/O NAJEEB, KOTTINEDATH HOUSE, MARIKUNNU P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673012 ``` ``` 5RATHAKESH S/O VELAYUDHAN, PULPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARIKUNNU P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673012 ``` ``` 2025:KER:28750 ``` 2 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `W.P.(C)No.6996 of 2025` - **`6 RIYAS S/O ABDULLA, THAREKKATTIL HOUSE, PARAMBIL BAZAR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673012`** - **`7 YOOSUF OCHERIMEETHAL HOUSE, CHERUVATTA, PARAMBIL P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673012`** - **`8 ADDL.R8. TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, NEAR AKASHAVANI, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673032 [IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.03.2025 IN I.A.NO.1/2025 IN WP(C)6996/2025].`** ## **`GP SRI AJITH VISWANATHAN`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:28750 ``` 3 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` W.P.(C)No.6996 of 2025 ``` ## **C.S.DIAS, J** **-------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No. 6996 of 2025 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of April, 2025** ## **JUDGMENT** The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate police protection to the petitioner to use his auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KL-11-BV-4874 without any obstruction from the part of the respondents 3 to 7 and their men. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the above auto rickshaw. The petitioner has a valid permit to operate his auto rickshaw within the territorial limits of the Kozhikode Corporation. However, the party respondents are obstructing the petitioner from plying the auto rickshaw within the limits of the Kozhikode ``` 2025:KER:28750 ``` ``` W.P.(C)No.6996 of 2025 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [10 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Corporation. Even though the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 complaint before the 2[nd] respondent, no action has been taken in the matter. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the additional 8[th] respondent. 4. The crux of the dispute in the writ petition is that the party respondents are obstructing the petitioner from plying his auto rickshaw within the limits of the Kozhikode Corporation as per Ext.P2 city permit. 5. Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act 2011, reads as follows: “72 Traffic Regulatory Committees - (1) In every Grama Panchayath, Municipality and Corporation Traffic Regulatory Committees shall be constituted as may be prescribed, for regulating matters in respect of traffic ``` 2025:KER:28750 ``` ``` W.P.(C)No.6996 of 2025 ``` 5 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** (2) The concerned head of the Local Government institution shall be the Chariman of the Traffic Regulatory Committee and the nominees of the District Magistrate, the District Police Chief, the Regional Transport Officer and the Executive Engineer of Public Works Department shall be the members of the said Committee. (3) The Traffic Regulatory Committee shall issue orders, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) and the Kerala Road Safety Act, 2007 (Act 8 of 2007) and the rules made thereunder, for preventing danger, obstruction and inconvenience caused to the general public in respect of traffic in the following matters. Such orders issued shall be complied with by the Government Departments concerned, the officers and the general public, namely :- (a) regulate the manner and time of traffic of all kinds in public places; (b) regulate the gateways, festoons, banners, hoardings, signs, re Presentations, illuminated displays, construction activity, trade, welding, environmental pollution, nuisance by noise, blasting of rocks, mining, bursting of crackers, flying of kites and fireworks etc , seen in any property m the manner having the possibility of distracting attention of the public road users or causing danger to them; (c) regulate the manner and mode of conveyance of timber, poles, ladders, iron girders, beams, iron bars, boilers, hay, soil and articles difficult in handling, etc along the streets; (d) regulate the carrying of any explosive substances or hazardous chemicals along public places which may cause danger to road users; (e) close certain streets or instruct that no one shall enter in certain places under circumstances that there is reasonable apprehension of danger from buildings which are on the verge of collapse or due to other reasons; ``` 2025:KER:28750 ``` ``` W.P.(C)No.6996 of 2025 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [10 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** (f) regulate the manner and means of entry from streets and public places to private buildings and places situated on the road side; (g) fix the manner in which the members of the general public may voluntarily assist in traffic management without causing any financial liability in that respect to the State or the Police Department”. 6. The question regarding applicability of Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act in matters of such nature is no longer resintegra in view of the categoric declaration of law by this Court in **Sreekumaran Nair T.S. vs. Neyyattinkara Municipality** [ 2023 KHC OnLine 10345], which in turn is passed by relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court in **Noushad M. and others vs. State of Kerala and others** [2019 (2) KHC 562]. The above decisions rule the roost. Therefore, I am of the view that it would be upto the petitioner to approach the additional 8[th] respondent and file a complaint with regard to obstructions being caused by the party respondents. If such ``` 2025:KER:28750 ``` ``` W.P.(C)No.6996 of 2025 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [10 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** complaint is filed, the 8[th] respondent shall act upon the complaint in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: (i) The petitioner is permitted to file an application under Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, before the additional 8[th] respondent, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - (ii) If such application is filed, the additional 8[th] respondent shall consider the application, in accordance with law and as as expeditiously possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of the application, after affording the and the an petitioner party respondents opportunity of being heard. ``` 2025:KER:28750 ``` **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` W.P.(C)No.6996 of 2025 ``` **==> picture [10 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** (iii) Until such time orders are passed on the application, the interim order dated 21.03.2025, will remain in force. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** SCB.03.04.25. ``` 2025:KER:28750 ``` 9 **==> picture [58 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## `W.P.(C)No.6996 of 2025` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6996/2025`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1 ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER’S AUTO RICKSHAW ISSUED BY THE RTO KOZHIKODE ``` ``` Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE CITY PERMIT ISSUED IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER’S AUTO RICKSHAW ISSUED BY THE RTO KOZHIKODE DATED 29-12-2022 ``` ``` Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06-02-2025 ```