IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32196 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. ANEESH,AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.ALPHONSE, THENGUVILA HOUSE, MANJUMALA,VANDIPERIYAR PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. SHAN, S/O.NAGURKANI, VARKATH HOUSE, VANDIPERIYAR PO,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. BIJU, NIRANATH HOUSE, CHURAKULAM PUTHUVAL, VANDIPERIYAR PO,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. RAJA, RAJA BHAVAN, VANDIPERIYAR PO,IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANDIPERIYAR POLICE STATION VANDIPERIYAR PO,IDUKKI DISTRICT-PIN-685 533. 2. THE SECRETARY, VANDIPERIYAR GRAMAPANCHAYATH,VANDIPERIYAR IDUKKI DISTRICT-PIN-685 533. * ADDL.R3 TO R10 IMPLEADED ADDL.R3: NAJEEB S/O. THANGALKUNJU AGED 33, BADARIA MANZIL, VANDIPERIYAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PROPRIETOR, BADARIYA STORES, VANDIPERIYAR. ADDL.R4: SYED ABU THAHIR, S/O. P.K.MUHAMMADALI, AGED 45 YEARS ' VIHAR' MANZIL, L.P.C.ROAD, VANDIPERIYAR, PROPRIETOR , NO.1, HOTEL VANDIPERIYAR. sts WP(C) NO. 32196/2010 ADDL.R5: MUHAMMED BIJILI, S/O. M.N.HASSAN PILLAI, AGED 43 YEARS, MUDAKKOLI PARAMBIL, NELLIMALA, VANDIPERIYAR, (PROPRIETOR, 'KARAR' KADA). ADDL.R6: S.M. SAILANI S/O. S.MUHAMMED, MUHAMMED NIWAS, NEAR MAZJIDHUR VANDIPERIYAR, PROPRIETOR BISMI FRUITS, VANDIPERIYAR. ADDL.R7: UMMER FAROOQ, S/O/ SYED KHAN AGED 55 YEARS, K.K. ROAD, VANDIPERIYAR, (PROPRIETOR, KARAR KARA). ADDL.R8: S.K.BASHEER, S/O. KHADER MYTHEEN RAWTHE, KINATTUKARAYIL HOUSE, NEAR MASJIDIZUR, VANDIPERIYAR, (PROPRIETOR- AZMI JIM CORNER). ADDL.R9: R. ABDUL SALAM S/O. RAZAK MUEEN AGED 39, SOBHA HOUSE, VANDIPERIYAR.P.O., (PROPRIETOR SOBHA PARADIS, VANDIPERIYAR). ADDL.R10: M. NAZAR, S/O.K.MOHAMMED, AGED 42, NEHAZ, MANZIL, VIKAS NAGAR, VANDIPERIYAR. *ADDL.R3 TO R10 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14/12/2010 IN I.A.NO.16437/2010 R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ALEX.M. THOMBRA ADDL.R3 TO R10 ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.32196 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.JOSEPH,J The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following relief: i) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent not to harass the petitioners and other autorickshaw drivers while parking their vehicles on the road margin in Vandiperiyar town. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows: 3. The petitioners and many similarly situated persons are plying their autorickshaws in Vandiperiyar for eking their livelihood. Vandiperiyar town is situated on the sides of Kottayam-Kumaly National Highway. For the past 15 years, autorickshaws in the town are parked on the road margin after leaving about 8 to 10 feet distance from the shop rooms. They are not causing any obstruction to the shop owners. At the instance of certain shop owners, the 1st respondent is demanding W.P.C.No.32196 of 2010 2 that the petitioners should remove their vehicles from the road margin where it is parked. Ext.P1 series photographs are produced to show how the autorickshaws have been parked. It is, while so, that additional respondents 3 to 10 came to be impleaded. They have produced Ext.R8(a) judgment of the learned Single Judge and they would point out that in the said judgment, this court directed as follows: “Therefore, it is essentially for the 1st respondent to take a decision in this matter, and hence, I direct the 1st respondent to take a decision on Ext.P2 complaint made by the petitioners. It is directed that if the decision of the Panchayat on Ext.P2 is to regulate the autorickshaw parking, it will be open to the Panchayat to seek the assistance of respondents 2 and 3, in which event, the aforesaid respondents shall afford necessary assistance to the Panchayat to implement its decision. Petitioners may produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent, who shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 in the manner as stated above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above.” W.P.C.No.32196 of 2010 3 4. It is pointed out that pursuant to the same, Ext.R8(b) resolution is passed by the Panchayat on 10/06/2010. Ext.R8(c) purports to be a complaint submitted by the Panchayat before the Circle Inspector of Police, Kumily seeking police assistance. 5. We have heard Adv.Sri.T.A.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv.Sri.Liji.J.Vadakkedam, the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 10 and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel for the petitioners would reiterate the allegations and would submit that the autorickshaws have been parked on the side of the National Highway and the police may not have authority to interfere in the matter. He would further submit that at the parking spaces provided pursuant to the decision of the Panchayat, only about 10 vehicles can be parked and there are other autorickshaws having permit and they are given permission to park in the Vandiperiyar town. 6. The learned counsel for respondents 3 to 10 would point out that the position shown in the photographs may not actually reflect the ground reality and it is pointed out that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the Panchayat, they have to make out their remedies elsewhere. W.P.C.No.32196 of 2010 4 7. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the police authorities are only giving assistance to the Panchayat as per the request of the Panchayat Secretary. 8. This writ petition is filed on 20/10/2010. We must notice that prior to the petitioner approaching this Court, admittedly R8(a) judgment has been obtained at the instance of respondents 3 to 8 wherein this Court directed the Secretary of the Panchayat to take a decision and further that if the Secretary requests for assistance from the police authorities, the police authorities were directed to give assistance to the Panchayat. If assistance is being granted by the police officer, as requested by the Panchayat authorities, apparently it is in accordance with the directions in the judgment of this Court. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that no autorickshaw owners were made parties to the petition filed by the respondents and in this case they are not aware of the proceedings. We cannot sit in judgment over the correctness of the directions of the learned Single Judge. It is for the petitioners to work out their remedies before the appropriate forum. W.P.C.No.32196 of 2010 5 9. without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to work out their remedies before the appropriate forum, this writ petition is dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C.No.32196 of 2010 6 W.P.C.No.32196 of 2010 7 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010