High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of with directions as stated above, di...

Vinayan G. v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 28369 of 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • ANIL K. NARENDRAN
Judgment Date
2018-11-23
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition disposed of with directions: i) If Ext.P5 representation is pending, the 10th respondent (Secretary, RTA) shall place it before the 9th respondent (RTA) within two weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment; ii) The 9th respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders, with notice to the petitioner, respondents 5-8, and others as necessary, within two months; iii) The legal contentions raised by the petitioner may be raised before the 9th respondent at the appropriate stage; the decision shall be expeditiously taken in accordance with law.
Final Disposition
Disposed of with directions as stated above, directing expeditious consideration of Ext.P5 by RTA and attachment of due notice to affected parties; contentions reserved for future raising before the RTA.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • VINAYAN G.

Respondents

  • THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645
  • THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 691 554
  • THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645
  • THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ENATHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA- 691526
  • THE SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT, EZHAMKULAM, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA-691554
  • THE ADOOR TALUK TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ADOOR - 691523
  • THE AUTORICKSHAW THOZHILALI UNION, CITU, ENATHU UNIT, ENATHU JUNCTION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ARUN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PIN - 691526
  • THE AUTORICKSHAW THOZHILALI UNION, INTUC, ENATHU UNIT, ENATHU JUNCTION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, JOBOY, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PIN - 691 526
  • ADDL.R9 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-689645
  • ADDL.R10 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
  • • Sri.M.KIRANLAL
  • • Smt.LIYA ROSE KURIAN
  • • Sri.R. RAJESH
  • • Sri.SARATH T.S.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • SRI. K.P. HARISH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Vinayan G., a textile businessman in Ezhamkulam Grama Panchayat, Pathanamthitta, filed this writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus to remove unauthorised parking of auto-rickshaws in front of his shop, Vinayaka Silks & Sarees at Enathu Junction. He asserts unauthorised auto-stand obstructs access to his shop and harms trade, and seeks action under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, as well as prompt consideration of Ext.P3 dated 02.01.2018. Ext.P2 photographs are relied upon to establish the obstruction. The petition also requests the impugned parking to be prohibited at Enathu junction and asks for action on Ext.P5 within a time frame. The respondents include various statutory authorities: State of Kerala, Joint Regional Transport Office (Adoor), District Police Chief, Enathu Police, Secretary of Ezhamkulam Gram Panchayat, Adoor Taluk Traffic Advisory Committee, and two auto-ly unions (CITU and INTUC), with RTA impleaded as respondents 9 and 10. The core issue is whether the auto-rickshaw stand in front of the petitioner’s shop is authorized. The court records statements from the 4th respondent denying unauthorised parking, noting a Panchayat letter suggesting authorization for a stand and the lack of a formal parking application to RTA. The court disposed of the petition with directions to place Ext.P5 before the RTA, and for prompt consideration with due notice, while keeping rights to legal contentions open. The judgment underscores balancing pedestrian/traffic concerns with business needs and statutory procedures.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaMotor Vehicles Act, 1988Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that unauthorised parking of auto-rickshaws directly obstructs access to his textile shop and interferes with business operations at Enathu junction. He seeks a mandamus to remove the unauthorised stand and requests action under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, in addition to consideration of Ext.P3 (dated 02.01.2018) and Ext.P5 (dated 14.11.2018). He relies on Ext.P2 photographs to prove obstruction and asserts a lack of proper parking facilities for customers. The petitioner contends that pending Ext.P5, the RTA should be directed to decide expeditiously, with notices to affected parties, and that the matter should be resolved in accordance with law and due process.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents, represented by the Senior Government Pleader, submit that the auto-rickshaw stand in front of the petitioner’s shop is not unauthorized; the Ezhamkulam Gram Panchayat had sent a letter (Annexure R4(a)) indicating a stand approved by the Panchayat Committee, and the Joint RTO (Annexure R4(b)) states no formal application for a parking place has been received. They argue there is no evidence of any violation and that the authorities must act strictly under law, with the RTA to consider Ext.P5 if properly placed before it. They emphasize the absence of a formal parking-permit process and maintain that any action should follow due procedure after proper application and consideration.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Joseph v. District Magistrate1996 (2) KLT 490Mentioned OnlyCited for persuasive reasoning but not applied or distinguished in the present judgment.
Chandran C.E. v. District Collector, Kozhikode and others2013 (3) KHC 53Mentioned OnlyCited for persuasive value; no explicit reliance or distinguishing noted in the disposal."
Ummer Farookh v. Station House Officer and others2014 (1) KHC 317 (DB)Mentioned OnlyCited as precedent; no demonstrated application or ruling from the bench.

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 Vinayan G. v. State of Kerala 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 ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 28369 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **VINAYAN G., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. GOPINATHAN ACHARI, PROPRIETOR, 'VINAYAKA SILKS AND SAREES', VINAYAKA BUILDINGS, ENATHU JUNCTION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT AND RESIDING AT VINOD MANDIRAM, THURUTHIKARA P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.KIRANLAL SMT.LIYA ROSE KURIAN SRI.R. RAJESH SRI.SARATH T.S.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.** - **2 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 691 554.** - **3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645** - **4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ENATHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA- 691526.** - **5 THE SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT, EZHAMKULAM, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA-691554.** 2 WPC 28369 OF 2018 - **6 THE ADOOR TALUK TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ADOOR - 691523.** - **7 THE AUTORICKSHAW THOZHILALI UNION, CITU, ENATHU UNIT, ENATHU JUNCTION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ARUN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PIN - 691526.** - **8 THE AUTORICKSHAW THOZHILALI UNION, INTUC, ENATHU UNIT, ENATHU JUNCTION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, JOBOY, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PIN - 691 526.** - **9 ADDL.R9 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-689645.** - **10 ADDL.R10 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645. (ADDL.R9 AND R10 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 23/11/2018 IN IA.NO.02/2018)** **SRI. K.P. HARISH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 WPC 28369 OF 2018 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is a businessman conducting textile business in Building No.392 in Ward No.XII of Ezhamkulam Grama Panchayat in Pathanamthitta district, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to remove unauthorised parking of autorickshaws by anyone including persons affiliated to 7[th] and 8[th] respondents in front of his shop, namely, M/s.Vinayaka Silks & Sarees at Enathu junction in Building No.392 in Ward No.XII of Ezhamkulam Grama Panchayat. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the official respondents to take action as per the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and prohibit parking of vehicles at Enathu junction; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to take action on Ext.P3 representation dated 02.01.2018 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 2. On 21.08.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice WPC 28369 OF 2018 4 on admission for respondents 1 to 4. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 5 to 8, returnable within three weeks. The learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. 3. A statement has been filed by the 4[th] respondent Sub Inspector of Police. Paragraphs 6 to 10 of the said statement read thus; “6. It is submitted that the petitioner also do not have any separate parking space for his customers. The customers also park their vehicles in the road margin. 7. It is submitted that on the basis of the petition filed by the petitioner before the Station House Officer, Enathu both parties were summoned in the station in the month of January 2018 and strict instructions were given to the auto rickshaw drivers not to cause any obstruction to the smooth functioning of the petitioners shop. 8. It is also submitted that there is no traffic conjunction and road block in front of the petitioners shop if any such situations arises Police is ready to remove such conjunction or block fourth with. 9. As per the letter of Secretary Ezhamkulam Gramapanchayath dated 18.09.18 the auto rickshaw stand is not unauthorized. The Panjayat committee had decided to grant permit to a new auto rickshaw stand in front of the petitioners 5 WPC 28369 OF 2018 shop. The true copy of the letter dated 19.09.2018 issued by the Secretary, Ezhamkulam Gramapanchayat is produced herewith and marked as **Annexure R4(a)** . 10. Subsequently this respondent received information from the Joint R.T.O., Adoor that they have not received any application for parking place. The true copy of the letter dated 18.09.2018 of Joint R.T.O., Adoor is produced herewith and ” marked as **Annexure R4(b)** . 4. On 07.11.2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, after referring to Annexure R4(b) letter dated 18.09.2018 of the 2[nd] respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer addressed to the Station House Officer, Enath Police Station, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, parking place in front of the petitioner's shop is unauthorised. The learned counsel submitted further that, if not already made, the petitioner shall file a proper request before the Regional Transport Authority against unauthorised parking of autorickshaws in front of his shop and the same shall be placed on record along with an application to accept additional documents. 5. Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, the petitioner has produced as Ext.P5, a representation dated WPC 28369 OF 2018 6 14.11.2018 made before the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Pathanamthitta. The petitioner has also filed an application to implead the Regional Transport Authority, Pathanamthitta and the Secretary of that Authority as additional respondents 9 and 10. The aforesaid applications are allowed by a separate order dated 23.11.2018 . 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and 9 and 10. Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents 5 to 8. 7. The grievance of the petitioner, which is highlighted in this writ petition, is unauthorised parking of autorickshaws in front of his textile shop, namely, Vinayaka Silks and Sarees in Building No.392 in Ward No.XII of Ezhamkulam Grama Panchayat, which is situated at Enathu junction. In order to substantiate the said fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on Ext.P2 series of photographs. 8. As can be seen from the statement filed on behalf of the 4[th] respondent, the autorickshaw stand in front of the petitioner's shop is not an authorised one and the Panchayat WPC 28369 OF 2018 7 Committee, vide Annexure R4(a) letter, has informed the Station House Officer of Enathu Police station that the Committee has taken a decision on 23.08.2018 to grant permission for an autorickshaw stand in front of the petitioner's shop. Along with I.A.No.1 of 2018, the petitioner has placed on record Ext.P5 representation dated 14.11.2018, stated to have been made before the additional 10[th] respondent, who is the Secretary of the additional 9[th] respondent Regional Transport Authority. 9. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of this Court in **Joseph v. District Magistrate [1996 (2) KLT 490]** , **Chandran C.E. v. District Collector, Kozhikode and others [2013 (3) KHC 53]** and also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in **Ummer Farookh v. Station House Officer and others [2014 (1) KHC 317 (DB)]** . 10. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit if Ext.P5 representation made by the petitioner is still pending consideration, the additional 10[th] respondent shall place it before the additional 9[th] respondent Regional Transport Authority, and the said Authority shall take an appropriate 8 WPC 28369 OF 2018 decision on that representation, with notice to the petitioner, respondents 5 to 8 and other interested parties, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 11. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions; i). If Ext.P5 representation made by the petitioner is still pending consideration, the additional 10[th] respondent shall place it before the additional 9[th] respondent Regional Transport Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. ii). Thereafter, the additional 9[th] respondent Regional Transport Authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner, respondents 5 to 8 and other affected persons, if found necessary by issuing public notice. A decision in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a further period of two months. iii). The legal contentions raised by the petitioner WPC 28369 OF 2018 9 relying on the judgment of this Court referred to supra are left open to be raised before the additional 9[th] respondent Regional Transport Authority at appropriate stage. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** **yd** 10 WPC 28369 OF 2018 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE D & O LICENSE VIDE E7-391/17-18 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT GRAMA PANCHAYATH** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE STATE OF AFFAIRS OF THE UNAUTHORISED PARKING AT ENATHU JUNCTION IN FRONT OF THE PETITIONER'S SHOP** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02/01/2018 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EVIDENCING THE SERVICE ON SOME OF THE RESPONDENTS** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO SECRETARY RTA, PATHANAMTHITTA CARRYING RECEIPT SEAL DATED 14.11.2018.** - **4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** - **ANNEXURE R4(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, EZHAMKULAM GRAMA PACHAYATH** **ANNEXURE R4(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.09.2018 OF JOINT R.T.O., ADOOR** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE**