WP(C) No. 4471 of 2023: Raveendran P.P. and others v. Ramant hli Grama Panchayat and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH`** ## **`MONDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF MAY 2023 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1945`** ## **`WP(C) NO. 4471 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 RAVEENDRAN.P.P AGED 50 YEARS S/O. KUNHIRAMAN.P.P, PADINHARE PURAYIL, RAMANTHALI AMSOM, PALAKODE, P.O. PALAKKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670305`** - **`2 KUNHABDULLA.C.A AGED 62 YEARS S/O. HAMZA.T, S.V. HOUSE, KAKKAMPARA, RAMANTHALI AMSOM PO. PALAKKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670305`** - **`3 NISHANTH.P AGED 36 YEARS S/O. DAMODARAN.T.V, PARIYARAKKARAN HOUSE, RAMANTHALI AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670308`** - **`4 DIPIN.P AGED 35 YEARS S/O. DAMODARAN, PANCHALAN PURAYIL HOUSE, CHITTADI, RAMANTHALI AMSOM, PALAKKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670305 BY ADV VISHAK.K.JOHNSON`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 RAMANTHALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.O. RAMANTHALI, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670308`** - **`2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER(SHO), PAYYANUR POLICE STATION, P.O. PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670307`** - **`3 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PAYYANUR P.O. PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670307`** - **`4 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KANNUR, PIN – 670001`** ``` WP(C) NO.4471 OF 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 5NAVAS.K AGED 36 YEARS S/O. MAHAMOOD, SECRETARY (STU) SWATHANTHRA THOZHILALI UNION, PALAKKODE, PO. PALAKKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT., PIN - 670305 BY ADVS. M.SASINDRAN B.MUHAMMED SHAHEEL R.N.SANDEEP(K/000940/2013) ``` ``` RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE- G.P SRI.M.SASINDRAN-SC ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO.4471 OF 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 29[th] day of May, 2023 The petitioners, who are auto-taxi drivers of Palakkod in Ramanthali Grama Panchayat, are before this Court seeking a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to render adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioners from being physically attacked by the 5[th] respondent and his gang when the petitioners park their auto-taxi at Palakkod road side. 2. The petitioners state that they have All Kerala Permits for their vehicles. When they tried to park and operate their vehicles at Palakkod, the 5[th] respondent and his gang physically attacked the petitioners and ransacked their vehicles. Respondents 2 to 4 do not render any protection to the petitioners. The petitioners have the right to park and operate ``` WP(C) NO.4471 OF 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` their vehicles at Palakkod like the 5[th] respondent and others. Due to the interdiction by the 5[th] respondent and others, the petitioners cannot operate their vehicles and that they are unable to repay bank loans. The act of the 5[th] respondent and others amounts to infringement of the right of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, contend the petitioners. 3. Standing Counsel representing the 1[st] respondent submitted that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Panchayat explored the possibility of providing an alternate site for auto-taxi parking at Palakkod road side and they are not in a position to identify any such place for the time being. 4. Government Pleader submitted that in view of Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, the Panchayat is bound to consider the issue and take appropriate decision in the larger public interest. ``` WP(C) NO.4471 OF 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel representing the 1[st] respondent and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 2 to 4. In view of the nature of the reliefs being granted in the writ petition, notice to the 5[th] respondent is dispensed with. 6. This Court considered the issue of parking places for autorikshaws and taxies in the judgment in _**Gopalan v. Vellangallur Grama Panchayat** [2021 (2) KLT 539]_ and held that on a harmonious reading of the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Kerala Police Act, 2011 it has to be held that the Traffic Regulatory Committees chaired by the heads of the Local Government Institutions constituted under Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 will be competent to decide, locate and demarcate autorikshaw/auto taxi stands in their respective territorial jurisdiction. ``` WP(C) NO.4471 OF 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` ## 7. In the judgment in _**Jestin Thomas v. Circle Inspector of Police** [2019 (2) KLT SN 70 (C.No.84)]_ , this ## Court held as follows:- “10. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the authorities, which have been empowered to grant such licences and to specify areas for parking, i.e., the third respondent has failed to perform their statutory obligation to earmark authorised taxis/ autorickshaws/motor cabs stand within their territorial limits as prescribed by the Act and Rules made thereunder. When the authorities constituted under the Act have not exercised their authority as has been rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is the duty of the Panchayat to take up the issue with the authorities under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Kerala Police Act and the Rules framed thereunder in accordance with law. Hence, the third respondent is obliged to determine the location of parking places for autorickshaws and taxis including the vehicles owned and operated by the petitioners in consultation with respondents 2 and 4 and all other stakeholders, if deemed necessary, in accordance with law for providing parking place for auto taxis or motor cabs.” 8. In view of the law laid down by this Court, it is the obligation of the 1[st] respondent-Panchayat, whose President is the Chairman of the Traffic Regulatory Committee, to establish appropriate parking places for different types of vehicles. ``` WP(C) NO.4471 OF 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1[st] respondent to consider the issue of parking for auto-taxies in accordance with the applicable Laws and Rules and take a final decision in the matter, within a period of two months. Sd/- **N.NAGARESH JUDGE** hmh ``` WP(C) NO.4471 OF 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4471/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit-P1TRUE COPY OF PERMIT IN RESPECT OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO. KL 13 AN-3744 NOW OWNED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER Exhibit-P2TRUE COPY OF PERMIT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER'S VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO. KL60P-8683 Exhibit-P3TRUE COPY OF PERMIT OF THE 3RD PETITIONER'S VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO. KL59Q-6930 Exhibit-P4TRUE COPY OF PERMIT OF THE 4TH PETITIONER'S VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO. KL13-AE-3759 Exhibit-P5TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 05.12.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 Exhibit-P5(a)TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 05.12.2022 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT ON RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P5 Exhibit-P5(b)TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 05.12.2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT ON RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P5 Exhibit-P6TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 08.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit-P7TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 30.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS : NIL ```