IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20237 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RANJITH M.P., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.PRAKASHAN, MATHRAMKOTE HOUSE, P.O.IRINGAPRAM, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GURUVAYUR POLICE STATION, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR. 2. CITU UNION, TEMPO PARK, GURUVAYUR UNIT, EAST NADA, GURUVAYUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, A.V.ABOO. 3. BMS UNION, TEMPO PARK, GURUVAYUR UNIT, EAST NADA, GURUVAYUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SURESH MANNARATH. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL SRI.M.R.DHANIL & SRI.K.R.REJITHKUMAR FOR R2 & R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.20237/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE R.C.BOOK OF THE VEHICLE OF THE PETITIONER BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL46 3329 AND KL 46A 5642. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: AFFIDAVIT DATED 27.7.08 FILED BY THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R2: TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED NIL SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER SREEMATHY PRAKASAN. EXT.R2(a): AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY SRI T.K.KOCHUDASAN, THE PRESIDENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNION. EXT.R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL OF EXHIBIT R2 CONTAINING COPIES OF EITHER SIDE WHEREIN ENDORSEMENT OF STAMP VENDOR IS MADE ON THE REVERSE SIDE. EXT.R2(c): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT WITH INDEX AND COPY OF EXHIBIT P3 FURNISHED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER TO ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.20237 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner's mother is the owner of two contract carriages bearing registration Nos.KL 46-3329 and KL 46A-5642. Those vehicles were being parked in the parking space, meant for tempo vans, established by the Guruvayur Municipality. Mr.Sumesh Kumar and Mr.Sudhish Kumar were the drivers of the said vehicles. When they left the service of the petitioner's mother, two new drivers were engaged to operate those vehicles. But, thereafter, the members of respondents 2 and 3 are not permitting those vehicles to use the parking space provided by the Municipality. According to the petitioner, respondents 2 and 3 insisted that the petitioner's mother should engage drivers belonging to their unions and further she should be a resident of Guruvayur Municipality to use the parking space. Feeling aggrieved by the obstruction caused by respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner filed a petition before the police on behalf of his mother seeking police protection. Since, the police did not extend any helping hand, this Writ Petition is filed. W.P.(C)No.20237/08 -2- 2. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner's mother had given an undertaking to them agreeing to engage drivers belonging to their unions in her vehicles. It is also submitted that the parking area is mainly used by the pilgrims. Balance area, if any, is used by the tempo vans, whose owners are residents of Guruvayur Municipality. Their drivers should have at least two years service also. Since the petitioner's mother does not satisfy the above requirements, she cannot park her vehicles there, it is stated. It is submitted that the above conditions were imposed pursuant to a decision taken in a meeting between the police officials and the trade unions. This was done to avoid the frequent disputes regarding the use of limited parking space by large number of vehicles. 3. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit denying the alleged execution of the above said agreement by his mother, a copy of which was produced by the party respondents as Exhibit R2(a). Thereupon the respondents 2 and 3 filed an additional counter affidavit stating that the agreement was handed over to them by the petitioner and they thought that it was really executed by his mother. The petitioner filed an additional reply affidavit denying the execution of Exhibit R2(a) by him. He also denied the averment that he has handed over Exhibit R2(a) to the unions. W.P.(C)No.20237/08 -3- 4. Guruvayur being a pilgrim centre, the decision to give preference to the vehicles of the pilgrims is a proper decision. But the further decision, if any, between the police and the unions regarding the utilisation of the remaining parking space cannot stand scrutiny in the eye of law. Normally, the balance space should be allowed to be used on first come first served basis. Any preference based on the place of residence will be unconstitutional. 5. If there is parking space when the petitioner's mother's vehicles arrive in the parking area and when the drivers try to park those vehicles there and the same is obstructed by respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner may inform the first respondent. In that event, the first respondent shall remove the obstruction. The police shall not be a party to enforce arbitrary and unconstitutional conditions for using the parking space provided by the Municipality which is a public authority, as its parking space is provided using public funds. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn