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 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
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 Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sreekumaran Nair T.S. vs. Neyyattinkara Municipality | 2023 KHC OnLine 10345 | Positive | Court 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 others | 2019 (2) KHC 562 | Positive | Division Bench decision relied upon by the above decision to rule the roost on Section 72's applicability. |
Diagnostic Tool
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.