IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11507 of 2010(K) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. RENJITH.R., S/O.RAJAKURUPPU, RESIDING AT KILIYATHAROL, VATTOLLI, ARAVANNUR, CALICUT DISTRICT. 2. RAJEEVAN, S/O.APPUKUTTY, KOKKARANIYIL HOUSE, NARIKKUNI, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), CALICUT. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUVALLY, CALICUT DISTRICT. 5. JAYADASAN, S/O.UNNERI NAIR, CHATHENKOLAYIL, NARIKKUNI, CALICUT. 6. MUHAMMED RAFEEQUE, S/O.MOSAKOYA, PURRAYIL HOUSE, PARANOOR, NARIKKUNI, CALICUT. 7. SULAIMAN.V., S/O.ATHRUMAN, VELLUPAYIL, NARIKKUNI P.O., KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE. W.P.(C).NO.11507 OF 2010 8. BALAN NAIR, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, 9/347, KOODATHAMKANDIYIL HOUSE, NARIKKUNI, CALICUT. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI T.K. VIPINDAS. ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN FOR R5-8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C).NO.11507 OF 2010 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KODUVDALLY. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.3.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUVALLY. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 23.3.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL). RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION. // True Copy // PS to Judge K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C). NO. 11507 OF 2010 K --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th April, 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioners seek a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioners' life and to ply their autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-57-254 by parking the same at Narikkuni, Calicut District in compliance with Ext.P1 permit conditions. Obstruction is alleged against respondents 5 to 8. 2. A Counter Affidavit is filed on behalf of the party respondents. Therein, the case set up is that the second petitioner is the person belonging to Narikkuni Panchayat. It is further stated as follows: Ext.P1 Permit shows that the parking place is at Narikkuni. The autorickshaw was being operated by a driver belonging to Narikkuni, during which time, there was no objection. It is WPC.NO.11507/2010 K 2 stated that Ext.R5(a) is a decision taken by the Co-ordination Committee of all political parties, that the autorickshaw having Permit in Narikkuni Panchayat should be driven by a driver belonging to the same Panchayat. It is also stated that because the first petitioner is from a different Panchayat, the fifth respondent requested the owner of the said vehicle to retain a driver of Narikkuni Panchayat. It is for the owner to make a complaint, it is stated. It is, inter alia, stated that the party respondents have no objection in the autorickshaw parking in Narikkuni itself. 3. We heard the learned counsel appearing. Learned counsel for the party respondents reiterated the same submissions. 4. We are of the view that there is absolutely no merit in the objections of the party respondents. A Permit has been granted under the Motor Vehicles Act under which the autorickshaw can be parked at Narikkuni. The agreement which is set up is clearly opposed to the terms of the said Permit and it WPC.NO.11507/2010 K 3 is also against the legal right of a citizen to acquire licence and ply the vehicle. Therefore, there is no merit in the objection on the basis of which the obstruction is being done. It is clear that there is obstruction also. In such circumstances, we dispose of the Writ Petition by making the interim order absolute. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge