High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-11-21Disposed of; petition allowed in part, with dir...

Vineesh K.M. and others v. Ayyanchery Grama Panchayath and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 23279 of 2015 (H)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2016-11-21
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of without any observation on merits regarding the other factors. The Panchayat is directed to consider the applicants 1 and 3 afresh after issuing notice within three weeks from certified copy of the judgment. No Costs.
Final Disposition: Disposed of; petition allowed in part, with directions for afresh consideration of parking/sticker applications; No Costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vineesh K.M.
Manulal K.
Rajeevan T.T.
Ratheesh C.M.

Respondents

Ayyanchery Grama Panchayathu represented by its Secretary, Kadamery P.O., Ayyanchery, Vadayakod District - 673 542
Chairman, Co-ordination Committee/President, Ayyanchery Grama Panchayath, Kadamery P.O., Ayyanchery, 673 542
Superintendent of Police (Rural), Vadakara, Kozhikode District
Sub Inspector of Police, Vadakara Police Station, Vadakara, Kozhikode District
Regional Transport Officer, Vadakara, Kozhikod District- 673 101

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. John Joseph (Roy)
• Sri. K.G. Radhakrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. B. Krishnan
• Sri. Vineetha Hariraj (Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, four auto-rickshaw operators, challenge two actions of the Ayyanchery Grama Panchayath: (i) prohibition on plying auto-rickshaws within the Panchayat limits unless they possess stickers issued by the Panchayath, and (ii) denial of parking space allegedly provided by the Regional Transport Authority. They argue that the restriction based solely on residence outside the Panchayat is unconstitutional and that the Panchayat cannot arbitrarily deny parking spaces. The Panchayat relies on Section 166 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Schedule III to regulate such activity, and cites Sadasivan v. State of Kerala to justify its regulatory powers. The petitioners rely on several precedents, including Rajesh K.R. v. Bharananganam Grama Panchayath and decisions such as Purushu M.P. and Sunilkumar E.K., to argue that prohibitions of the nature imposed are unsustainable. The court analyzes two issues: (a) the prohibition on operation of autos without Panchayat stickers within the Panchayat limits; the court finds this prohibition illegal; (b) the non-allotment of parking spaces, noting prior rulings that there can be no blanket prohibition by the Panchayat. The judgment directs the Panchayat to reconsider petitions 1 and 3 afresh with notice within three weeks and disposes the petition without observations on merits, with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994Schedule III of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that prohibiting auto-rickshaws lacking Panchayat stickers within the Panchayat limits is unlawful and that the denial of parking space is contrary to decisions like Purushu M.P. and Sunilkumar E.K. They rely on Rajesh K.R. and other precedents to challenge the regulatory framework under Section 166 and Schedule III of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, asserting that residency outside the Panchayat cannot be a sole ground to deny permits or parking. They urge afresh consideration of their applications with due process.

Contentions of Respondents

The Panchayat defends its regulatory authority under Section 166 and Schedule III, arguing that the Panchayat has power to regulate operating permits and parking through its regulations. It cites Sadasivan and others v. State of Kerala to justify its regulations and argues that restrictions may be permissible under statutory authority, while seeking to uphold the parking regime consistent with law.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajesh K.R. v. Bharananganam Grama Panchayath	2013 (1) KHC 172	Mentioned Only	Cited by the petitioners as a precedent; the present judgment does not expressly apply or distinguish this case.
Purushu M.P. and others v. Regional Transport Officer, Vatakara	2015 (3) KHC 229	Positive	Court relies on this decision to hold that there can be no prohibition by the Panchayat on parking spaces.
Sunilkumar E.K. and others v. State of Kerala	2015 (3) KHC 230	Positive	Court relies on this decision to support the view that there can be no such prohibition by the Panchayat.
Sadasivan and others v. State of Kerala	2016 (3) KHC 632	Distinguished	Earlier case upheld Panchayat regulation; the present case distinguishes the facts, limiting applicability of that decision.

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 Vineesh K.M. and others v. Ayyanchery Grama Panchayath 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/30TH KARTHIKA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 23279 of 2015 (H)** **------------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S) : -------------------------** **1. VINEESH K.M., S/O. POKKU K.M., AGED 32 YEARS, KERALANDI MITHAL HOUSE, KOTTAPILLY POST, VALIYAPPILLY (VIA), VADAKARA- 673 542.** **2. MANULAL K., S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 20 YEARS, PUNATHIKANDI HOUSE, AYANCHERY P.O., THIRUVALORE (VIA), VADAKARA- 673 541.** **3. RAJEEVAN T.T., S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 41 YEARS, THEKKINA THARAMEL HOUSE, KOTTAPILLY POST, VALIYAPPILLY (VIA), VADAKARA- 673 542.** **4. RATHEESH C.M., S/O. GOPALAN, AGED 29 YEARS, CHERKOTTU MITHAL HOUSE, AYANCHERY POST, THIRUVALORE (VIA), VADAKARA- 673 541.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S) :** - **-----------------------------** **1. AYYANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATHU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAMERY P.O., AYYANCHERY, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT- 673 542.** **2. CHAIRMAN, CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE/PRESIDENT, AYYANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATHU, KADAMERY P.O., AYYANCHERY, VADAKARA TALUK, PIN- 673 542.** **3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), VADAKARA, KOZHIKOD DISTRICT- 673 101.** **4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKARA POLICE STATION, VADAKARA, KOZHIKOD DISTRICT, PIN- 673 101.** **..2/-** **..2..** **WP(C).No. 23279 of 2015 (H)** **------------------------------------------** ## **5. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, VADAKARA, KOZHIKOD DISTRICT- 673 101.** ## **R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.B.KRISHNAN** **SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY R3 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. VINEETHA HARIRAJ** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. ## **WP(C).No. 23279 of 2015 (H)** ## **------------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT TO THE VEHICLE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER NO. KL-18/H-823.** - **EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR STICKER TO THE AUTO OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT TO THE VEHICLE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER KL-18/N-4085.** - **EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR STICKER TO THE AUTO OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT TO THE VEHICLE OF THE 3RD PETITION KL-18/G-72.** - **EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR STICKER TO THE AUTO OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT TO THE VEHICLE OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR STICKER TO THE AUTO OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 4TH PETITIONER.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION IN THE MEETING HELD ON 06.08.2008.** **WP(C).No. 23279 of 2015 (H)** **------------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMMITTEE FROM 29.08.2008 TO 21.10.2008.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** -----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 23279 of 2015 (H) -----------------------------------------Dated: 21[st] November, 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners were aggrieved with the prohibition in plying auto-rickshaws within the 1[st] respondent Panchayat without stickers issued from the local authority and the denial of providing parking space within the jurisdiction of the 1[st] respondent Panchayat. The grievance survives only as against the 1[st] and 3[rd] petitioners, since the other two have already been granted parking space and stickers. 2. The petitioners rely on a number of decisions of this Court in **Rajesh K.R. v. Bharananganam Grama Panchayath - 2013 (1) KHC 172** , **Purushu M.P. and others v. Regional Transport Officer, Vatakara - 2015 (3) KHC 229** and **Sunilkumar E.K.** ## **W.P.(C) No. 23279/2015** **-2-** **and others v. State of Kerala - 2015 (3) KHC 230** . The respondent Panchayat relies on **Sadasivan and others v. State of Kerala - 2016 (3) KHC 632** . 3. The petitioners contend that their applications for plying vehicles within the Panchayat area has been declined only for reason of their residence being situated outside the jurisdiction of the Panchayat. They rely on the decision in **Sunilkumar E.K.** (supra), which specifically considered the issue of refusal of permits for persons residing outside the Corporation limit, which was found to be unconstitutional. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat, however, relying on the decision in **Sadasivan** (supra) contends that the Panchayat sources its power from Section 166 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ('Act' for short) and the Panchayat, who is allotting the parking spaces, as per Schedule III of the ## **W.P.(C) No. 23279/2015** **-3-** Act, has to be conceded the Authority to make regulation of such activity. 5. **Sadasivan** (supra) was a case in which the Panchayat had restricted the owners of taxis from parking more than one taxi in the parking space allotted by the Panchayat. The challenge raised by the owners, who had more than one vehicle, was rejected by this Court, finding that the regulation made is perfectly in order and that the petitioners have no statutory right to insist that they are entitled to park more vehicles in the area in question, against the regulatory measures. 6. In the present case a totally different issue arises. The petitioners are aggrieved by the two actions/omissions of the Panchayat; one, the prohibition imposed on the auto-rickshaws without stickers, issued by the Panchayat, from operating within the limits of the Panchayat. The second grievance is with respect to ## **W.P.(C) No. 23279/2015** **-4-** not allotting a parking space, as provided by the Regional Transport Authority. 7. With respect to the first grievance; there can be no prohibition imposed by the Panchayat prohibiting the operation of auto-rickshaws, which do not have stickers issued by the Panchayat, within the Panchayat limits. It cannot be said that a person commencing journey from the nearby Panchayat has to board a different auto-rickshaw with a sticker on entering the precincts of the respondent Panchayat. The prohibition has to be found to be illegal. 8. The further grievance is with respect to the non allotting of parking spaces. It has been categorically held in the decisions in **Purushu M.P.** and **Sunilkumar E.K.** (supra) that there can be no such prohibition by the Panchayat. ## **W.P.(C) No. 23279/2015** **-5-** 9. In such circumstance, the respondent Panchayat has to consider the applications of petitioners 1 and 3 afresh. It is made clear that the mere existence of their residence outside the Panchayat area cannot be a reason for denying them the parking spaces. The writ petition, hence, is disposed of without any observation on merits as to the other factors, leaving open the Panchayat to consider the same, in accordance with law, after issuing notice to petitioners 1 and 3, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. No Costs. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 21/11/16