IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 33060 of 2010(F) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- G.RAJAN KURUP, AGED 49, S/O.GOPALAKURP, RESIDING AT R.R.BHAVAN, KOTTAKERAM, PARIPPALLY PO, KOLLAM, PRESIDENT, KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAI EKOPANA SAMITHI, PARIPPALLY UNIT, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.HARISH GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALLUVATHUKKAL, PO,KOLLAM-691 578. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE S.P OFFICE, KOLLAM-691001. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691578. * ADDL. R5 TO R7 IMPLEADED 5. MR.AJAY KUMAR M., SECRETARY, AUTOMOBILE UNION(CITU), NEERITHI, PARIPALLY, KOLLAM - 691 578. 6. MR. VINOD PARIPALLY, SECRETARY, AUTOMOBILE UNION (INTUC), CONGRESS BHAVAN, PARIPALLY, KOLLAM-691578. 7. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KOLLAM - 691 578. svs .............2/-... ...2... WPC.NO.33060/2010 * ADDL. R5 TO R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04/01/2011 IN I.A. NO.17829/2010 ** ADDL. R8 IMPLEADED 8. STALIN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, STALIN NIVAS, PARIPILLY, KOLLAM, (SECRETARY, AUTORICKSHAW WORKERS UNION(AITUC), PARIPALLY). ** ADDL.R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03/02/2011 IN I.A. NO.1846/2011. R-1 BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR R2 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA R5 BY ADVS. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.M.U.VINOD BABU R8 BY ADV. SRI.M.TRIPTEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WPC.NO.33060/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE MINUTES BOOK DATED 03/08/2001 PRESENTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14/07/2010 PRESENTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/06/2010PRESENTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED 18/05/2010 PRESENTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02/07/2010 PRESENTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/08/2010 PRESENTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.33060 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the President of the Kerala Vyapari Vyavasai Ekopana Samithi, Parippally unit in Kollam district. This Writ Petition has been filed mainly seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 representation so as to facilitate ingress and egress of the customers as also for the purpose of taking in and taking out the goods from shops in the old panchayath shopping complex by shifting the autorikshaw stand to any other suitable location and such other consequential reliefs. The contention of the petitioner is that in terms of the provisions under the Kerala Panchayth Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'), the first respondent panchayath has passed Ext.P1 resolution. As per the same, parking place was allotted to buses and autorikshaws. The present grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the shifting of the parking place of autorikshaws from the place allotted as per Ext.P1 in such a manner to permit parking in the Parippilly junction. According to the petitioner, shifting the parking place and granting W.P.(C) NO.33060/2010 2 permission to park autorikshaws in the Parippally junction by the side of national highway is against the provisions of Rules of Road Regulations, 1989. That apart, according to the petitioner, it is causing considerable hardships and inconveniences to the public at large, more particularly, to the customers of the members of the petitioner's association. It is submitted that the conciliations held on the issue could not yield any fruitful result. In the said circumstances that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appropriate directions may be issued to the competent authorities namely the first respondent to take a decision with respect to the parking place of the autorikshaws taking into account the relevant provisions under Section 227 of the Act and Section 344 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules and also the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the fifth respondent as also the 8th respondent. 3. Earlier, autorikshaws were used to park at the Parippally junction viz., before the shopping complex. Subsequently, taking note of the inconvenience caused to the general public and the merchants and, of W.P.(C) NO.33060/2010 3 course, after hearing the representatives of the association of the autorikshaw operators, Ext.P1 resolution was passed. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the action on the part of the respondents in permitting parking place to autorikshaws in violation of the decision taken in Ext.P1. Earlier, on being aggrieved by the decision in Ext.P1, the fifth respondent moved the panchayat. Pursuant to the same, they were granted permission to park the autorikshaws at the present place. However, there is nothing on record to show that decision in Ext.P1 was changed. Be that as it may, it is evident that at present there is a dispute with respect to the halting place and parking place of autorikshaws. According to the petitioner, granting permission to park autorikshaws in the Parippilly Junction before the shopping complex would cause considerable inconvenience to the general public as also to the merchants conducting business in the junction. On the other hand, counsel for the 5th respondent as also the 8th respondent submitted that it is after considering the grievance raised by the autorikshaw operators and on finding the genuineness of their grievances that permission was granted to the operators to shift the halting place and the parking place. In short, the rival contentions would reveal that as on today, there is a dispute with respect to W.P.(C) NO.33060/2010 4 the parking place. According to the petitioner, granting permission to continue to park the autorikshaws before the shopping complex at Parippally Junction would cause inconvenience to the general public as also to the merchants and that shifting the parking place from the present halting place would cause hardships to the autorikshaw operators as it may affect their very livelihood. 4. In view of the rival contentions, it is relevant to refer to the provisions under Section 227 of the Act, Section 344 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as also Rule 15 of the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989. A perusal of Section 227 of the Act would reveal that the power to provide parking place for vehicles vests with the Regional Transport Authority. Section 334 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules would reveal that R.T.A is the authority to determine the location of parking place of vehicles including autorikshaws. Proviso to Rule 227 requires the panchayath to obtain previous sanction of the R.T.A before any stand or halting place is opened. Therefore, apparently, there is no conflict at all between the provision under Section 227 of the Act, 1994 and Rule 334 of the KMV Rules. Essentially, the power to sanction, rather, to determine the location of parking of vehicles vests with the R.T.A. At the same time, W.P.(C) NO.33060/2010 5 going by the provisions under Section 227, with the sanction of the R.T.A, stand or halting place for motor vehicles could be opened by the panchayath. Rule 15 of the Road Regulations, 1989 deals with the parking of the vehicles. It is contended that while deciding parking in terms of Section 227 of the Act, the provisions under Rule 15 of the Road Regulations are also to be looked into. As already noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner herein has already approached the first respondent to resolve the dispute through Ext.P6 representation. At the same time, according to respondents 5, 6 and 8, shifting parking place from the present location would adversely affect the general public. In short, the competent authority, viz., the first respondent, under Section 227 is bound to take a decision on Ext.P6 representation of course looking into the relevant provisions referred above and pass appropriate orders fixing the halting place for motor vehicles namely the autorikshaws. Such a decision shall be taken by the first respondent in terms of the relevant provisions referred above by considering the grievance raised by the petitioner in Ext.P6 after affording him an opportunity of being heard as also the recognized association of the autorikshaw operators. Needless to say that any decision thereon shall be taken only with a previous sanction from the R.T.A as W.P.(C) NO.33060/2010 6 contemplated under Section 227 of the Act. At any rate, such a decision shall be taken within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This Writ Petition is disposed of, accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.33060/2010 7 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.33060/2010 8