IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 10868 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- *1. VARGHESE.P.V,PARAVATTI HOUSE, THURUTHUSSERY.P.O,NEDUMBASSERY-683585. *1st petitioner is deleted vide order dtd24.6.11 in IA.No.9725/11. 2. ROGIN MANI,KOTTACKAL HOUSE,NAYATHODU.PO, ANGAMALY-683572. 3. MARTIN.M.A,MAROTTIKUDY HOUSE, NAYATHODU.P.O,ANGAMALY-683572. 4. BIJOY DEVASSY,MALPAN HOUSE,NAYATHODU.PO, ANGAMALY-683572. 5. SREEJESH.K.P,KAVUNGAL HOUSE,NAYATHODU.PO ANGAMALY-683572. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMBASSERY-683585. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMBASSERY-683585. 3. AIRPORT MEKHALA HEAVY & LIGHT MOTOR THOZILALI UNION,NEDUMBASSERY-683585,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.A.POLY,RESIDING AT ARACKAL HOUSE,AKAPARAMBU,VAPPALASSERY.P.O,PIN-683572. *Addl.R4 DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI 682 030. ADDL.R5 CARGO MANAGER, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERI 683 585 *ADDL R4 & R5 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DTD 24.6.11 IN IA.9724/11 ADV. SRI.T.N.SURESH FOR R3 SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, KIAS LTD. FOR R5 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC, COCHIN I AIRPORT LT FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. CHARISHMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.NO.10868/2011 EXT.P1 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DTD 10.9.2009 ISSUED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P1(a) COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT DTD 19.9.2006. EXT.P1(b) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DTD 28.2.2011 EXT.P1(c) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DTD 13.6.2008. EXT.P1(d) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DTD 7.7.2009. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE CARGO CLEARING AND FORWARDING AGENCIES IN THE AIRPORT DATED NIL EXT.P3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED29.3.11. EXT.P3(a) COPY OF RECEIPT DTD 29.3.11 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 17.12.2007 IN WPC 35554/07 /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE cl PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.10868 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 14th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J: The petitioners 1 to 5 claim to be owners of goods carriage vehicles having valid permits. The issue pertains to parking of their vehicles on the public roads near the Cochin International Airport at Nedumbasseri. Allegation is that the 3rd respondent trade union and its members are causing obstruction to the parking of the vehicles belonging to the petitioners in public roads and from engaging in transport of cargo from the International Airport. Despite complaints made by the petitioners about the illegal obstructions, respondents 1 and 2 are not taking effective actions and hence the petitioners are seeking police protection to have their vehicles parked in the public roads and to take trips with respect to transport of cargo from the Airport. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it W.P.(C).NO.10868 OF 2011 : 2 : is mentioned that a 'turn system' has been introduced with respect to the transport of cargo from the Airport as evidenced from Ext.R3(a). It is contended that the petitioners are also parties to such settlement and they have also singed in Ext.R3(a) agreement of the 'turn system'. However, the petitioners are disputing the agreement with respect to the turn system. It is contended that the signature of the first petitioner was obtained in Ext.R3(a) without disclosing about any such decision regarding the 'turn system'. 3. As directed by this Court, the District Labour Officer as well as the Cargo Manager of the Cochin International Airport were impleaded as additional respondents 4 and 5. Standing counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submitted that the dispute with respect to parking outside the premises of the cargo station is not a matter affecting the 5th respondent and they have no interest in the dispute between the vehicle owners. It is further submitted that the authorities of the cargo station have not put any restriction regarding transport of cargo. In the statement filed on behalf of the additional 4th respondent (District Labour Officer), it is mentioned that there exists a dispute with W.P.(C).NO.10868 OF 2011 : 3 : respect to the turn arrangement sought to be introduced and that the petition received from the Secretary of the 3rd respondent union has already been forwarded to the Assistant Labour Officer, Ankamaly for enquiry. The enquiry report received from the Assistant Labour Officer revealed that the turn system alleged to have been evolved is not acceptable to many of the vehicle owners and drivers, since the clearing agents have their own registered vehicles, numbers of which were already furnished to the security department of Cochin International Airport Ltd. However, it is mentioned that a joint conference was convened to resolve the above issue, on 4.7.2011. But, no consensus could be arrived between the parties concerned and some of the parties sought further time. However, the learned Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions submitted that since no settlement could be arrived regarding the 'turn system', the matter has already been referred to the higher officials of the Labour Department. 4. From the facts and circumstances as narrated above and considering the rival contentions, it is evident that there is no obstruction caused to the petitioners in parking their W.P.(C).NO.10868 OF 2011 : 4 : vehicles on the public roads. Whether the petitioners should abide by the 'turn system' evolved or not and as to whether any restriction can be imposed to the transport being conducted with their vehicles are matters which need not be decided in this writ petition. It is left open to the authorities of the cargo station of the Cochin International Airport or the clearing agents who are hiring the vehicles to conduct transport of the goods in accordance with the decision taken by them considering the regulation prevailing with respect to clearing of goods and transportation of the same. It is evident that there exists dispute regarding the 'turn system' evolved. However, it will be left open to the authorities concerned to evolve any settlement through proper legal recourse and introduce any such system, if it is found feasible and desirable. 5. Considering the circumstances now prevailing, we are of the opinion that the 3rd respondent has no manner of right to create any obstruction to the parking of the vehicles belonging to the petitioners or from the vehicles being engaged for transport of goods from the cargo station. If any obstruction is caused in this regard, respondents 1 and W.P.(C).NO.10868 OF 2011 : 5 : 2 shall take appropriate steps to remove such obstruction. However, if any competent authority takes any decision evolving any settlement introducing 'turn system', the petitioners should also abide by such decision with respect to transport of goods from the cargo stations. The writ petition is disposed of with observations and the directions contained herein in above. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K. ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. cl