Varghese, Basil K. Paul and Eliamma George v. State of Kerala and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2021-12-02
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed; interim order dated 21.10.2021 is confirmed; directing respondents 3 (SHO), 4 (Panchayath) and 5 (RTO) to ensure respondents 6–14 or any other person do not park their vehicles in front of petitioners’ establishments in a manner that obstructs ingress or egress. The court also leaves liberty to respondents 6–14 to approach the Panchayat to obtain spaces for halting their vehicles in terms of law.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; interim order confirmed; directions to prevent unauthorised parking; liberty to petitioners’ respondents 6–14 to seek lawful halting spaces through the Panchayat.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Varghese
Basil K Paul
Eliamma George

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Thiruvananthapuram
District Police Chief, Ernakulam Rural, Aluva
Station House Officer, Muvattupuzha Police Station
Secretary Valakom Grama Panchayath
Regional Transport Officer, Muvattupuzha
Jose
George
Mani
Shine
Anil C.T.
Sabu
Joy
Biju
Vijayan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Salish Aravindakshan
• K.S. Shaiju

Counsels for Respondents

• P.V. Elias
• Smt.K.Amminikutty
• E.C. Bineesh
• Sabu John

Case Synopsis & Summary

Varghese, Basil K. Paul and Eliamma George, residents of Muvattupuzha, filed WP(C) 22377/2021 seeking protection from unauthorised parking of autorickshaws and other transport vehicles by respondents 6–14 in front of their establishments at a busy junction along the National Highway. They alleged that reckless parking obstructs ingress and egress for employees, staff and customers, affecting about 25 shop rooms and disrupting traffic flow. Despite representations to authorities, no action was taken, prompting the petition. Interim relief dated 21.10.2021 had been granted, and the petition was admitted on 02.12.2021. Respondents 6–14 did not appear. The 4th respondent (Valakom Grama Panchayath) and the 5th respondent (Regional Transport Officer) were advised that the area is not a notified halt and that action should be taken; the 3rd respondent (Station House Officer, Muvattupuzha) and others were directed to ensure that no unauthorised parking occurs. The court noted that similar issues had been answered by this Court in Martin Jacob v. Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam, and held the petitioners were entitled to relief. The judgment ultimately allowed the writ petition, confirmed the interim order, and directed authorities to prevent parking in front of petitioners’ establishments, while granting liberty to respondents 6–14 to seek lawful halting spaces through the Panchayat.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners allege unauthorized, reckless parking of autorickshaws and other transport vehicles by respondents 6–14 in front of their establishments at a junction of a National Highway, obstructing ingress and egress for employees, staff and customers across about 25 shop rooms. They had submitted representations to authorities but no action followed, prompting this writ petition. They contend the area is not a notified halt or stand and urge the authorities to act to prevent obstruction.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argue the area is not a notified stopping place; the Panchayat has not allotted halting stands; they emphasize notifying proper action through the Regional Transport Officer and point to the interim measures already taken (removal of illegal parkings) and the absence of a formal halt facility.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Martin Jacob vs. Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam and others	2021(5)KHC 655	Positive	Cited as controlling precedent showing relief in similar traffic-halt disputes.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 22377 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 VARGHEESE AGED 70 YEARS S/O. KURYAKOSE MATTATIL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682316. 2 BASIL K PAUL AGED 42 YEARS S/O. PAUL KANNOONATHU HOUSE, KUNNACKAL P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682316. 3 ELIAMMA GEORGE, AGED 74 YEARS W/O. GEORGE, MATTATHIL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682316. BY ADVS. SALISH ARAVINDAKSHAN K.S.SHAIJU ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF. ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA, PIN - 683101. 3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686661. 4 SECRETARY VALAKOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MEKKADAMPU POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682316. 5 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER **WP(C) NO. 22377 OF 2021** **2** MUVATTUPUZHA, MARKET P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686673. 6 JOSE AGED 50 YEARS KUNNUMPURATHU HOUSE, KUNNACKAL P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682316. 7 GEORGE AGED 65 YEARS KALLANKUDIYIL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682316. 8 MANI AGED 65 YEARS MANAKKATTU HOUSE, KUNNACKAL P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682316. 9 SHINE AGED 50 YEARS VADAKKEPPURACKAL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682316. 10 ANIL C.T. AGED 45 YEARS CHIRAKKANAKUDIYIL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682316. 11 SABU AGED 55 YEARS IRUMBAYIL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682316. 12 JOY AGED 50 YEARS KANDACHIRAYIL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682316. 13 BIJU AGED 44 YEARS PULIKKAYATHU HOUSE, MANAKKAPEDIKA, KUNNACKAL P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682316. **WP(C) NO. 22377 OF 2021** **3** 14 VIJAYAN AGED 60 YEARS PULLIKKATTU HOUSE, KUNNACKAL P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682316. BY ADVS. P.V.ELIAS SABU JOHN ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY .SR.G.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 22377 OF 2021** **4** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners have approached this Court alleging that respondents 6 to 14 are parking their Autorikshaws and other transport vehicles in front of their establishments, without sanction and in a manner so as to obstruct the ingress and egress into them by their employees staff and customers. 2. The petitioners allege that because of the reckless parking of the Autorikshaws in the area, which is in fact a “junction”, the traffic through the National Highway is impeded and that nearly 25 shop rooms are affected by this. They submit that since respondents 6 to 14 are parking their vehicles without any sanction of law, they have made several representation before the competent Authorities; but that no action has been taken thereon, which has now forced them to prefer **WP(C) NO. 22377 OF 2021** **5** Ext.P2 before the 3[rd] respondent - Station House Officer, seeking protection. They say that, however, since no action has been taken thereon either, they have been constrained to approach this Court through this writ petition. 3. I have heard Sri.Salish Aravindakshan - learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri.P.V.Elias – learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent and Smt.K.Amminikutty – learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 4. Even though notices have been validly served from this Court on respondents 6 to 14, they have chosen not to be present in person or to be represented through counsel; inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have no objection to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition being granted by this Court. 5. The learned Senior Government Pleader, **WP(C) NO. 22377 OF 2021** **6** Sri.E.C.Bineesh, submitted that, in terms of the interim order of this Court dated 21.10.2021, all illegal parkings from the area have been removed and that there has been no obstruction to the ingress and egress to the petitioners' establishments thereafter. 6. Sri.P.V.Elias – learned Standing counsel for the Panchayat, affirmed that the area, where respondents 6 to 14 are alleged to be parking their Autorikshaws is not a notified stand or a halting place and therefore, that they have alerted the 5[th] respondent – -Regional Transport Officer appropriately to take necessary action to remove them. 7. Taking note of the afore submissions and since the issues similar to the ones raised in this case have already been answered by this Court in _**Martin Jacob vs. Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam and others**_ [2021(5)KHC 655] I am certain that the petitioner is entitled to **WP(C) NO. 22377 OF 2021** **7** the reliefs as sought for. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed, confirming the interim order dated 21.10.2021; consequentially, directing respondents 3, 4 and 5 to ensure that respondents 6 to 14 or anyone else does not park their Autorikshaws or any other transport vehicles in front of the petitioners' establishments in a manner so as to cause any inconvenience to them or to obstruct the egress and ingress into them. ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **JUDGE** SAS/02/12/2021 ## **- To be spoken to:** I had heard this matter and dictated a judgment on 02.12.2021. 2. Subsequently, Sri.Sabu John, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 14, **WP(C) NO. 22377 OF 2021** **8** submitted that he had been incapacitated in appearing before this Court on account of technical reasons and thus prayed that this matter be heard again. 3. It is in such manner that I have listed this matter again today. 4. I have heard Sri.Sabu John, who says that the Panchayat has not allotted any halting stands within their territory. Even if this be so, I cannot find how respondents 6 to 14 can park their vehicles causing annoyance and vexation to the petitioners. I, therefore, in addition to the directions in this judgment, leave liberty to respondents 6 to 14 to move the Panchayat appropriately for allotting spaces to halt their vehicles in terms of law. ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** rp **JUDGE** **WP(C) NO. 22377 OF 2021** **9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22377/2021** PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 19.02.2021. Exhibit P2 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 09.03.2021. Exhibit P3 THE PHOTO COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF MALAYALAMANORAMA NEWS PAPER DATED 28.09.2020.