IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 7270 of 2011(G) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. MULAVUKADU PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, MULLAVUKADU NORTH, ERNAKULAM 682 504, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. V.S.AKBAR, VATHUKKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE MULAVUKADU, ERNAKULAM. 3. P.N.JAYARAJ, POYYAKULATH HOUSE MULAVUKADU PO, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 682 030. 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM 682 011. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CITY TRAFFIC, ERNAKULAM 682 011. 4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY TRAFFIC, ERNAKULAM 682 011. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULAVUKADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM 682 504. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT DT. 23.4.2010 EXT.P2: -DO- DT. 28-12-2009 EXT.P3: -DO- DT. 7.6.2010 EXT.P4: -DO- DT. 28.12.2010 EXT.P5: -DO- OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 24.6.2010 /TRUE COPY/ P.S to Judge jj K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 7270 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th July, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner, an association of stage carriage operators by name, 'Bus Operators Association', unit of Mulavukadu with its parent association registered as TCR 161/84 has filed this writ petition alleging that autorickshaws are conducting a parallel service carrying passengers to and from the High Court Junction to Mulavukadu. The members of the petitioner's Association are operating stage carriages along the route on the strength of valid permits issued to them. According to the petitioner, there are only thirteen stage carriages conducting services on the route. The autorickshaws in the area are carrying passengers in the same manner as a stage carriage vehicle, taking and setting down passengers at various places, in violation of the provisions of the permits issued to them. It is the case of the petitioner that autorickshaws are contract carriages that can only be hired by the individual persons for operating trips to specified destinations. The complaint is that, plying of autorickshaws in the same manner as stage carriages are plied, is adversely WPC 7270/2011 2 affecting the services of the members of the petitioner causing heavy loss to them. It is also alleged that 10 to 12 passengers are being carried in each autorickshaw at considerable risk to the lives of such passengers. Though Ext.P5 complaint has been made to the second respondent, no action has been taken thereon till date. Therefore, it is alleged that the autorickshaws are conducting services to the detriment of the services operated by the members of the petitioner without any hindrance. 2. The learned Govt. Pleader seriously dispute the assertions of the petitioner. According to the learned Govt. Pleader, there are only thirteen stage carriages plying on the route. The services are grossly inadequate to cater to the needs of the passengers. Therefore, the passengers have often been engaging autorickshaws and using them for travelling to the places of their choice, in groups. It was such travel in groups that has been described as “operation like stage carriages”, by the counsel for the petitioner. It is further submitted that pursuant to Ext.P5 complaint, the matter was got enquired into by the Circle Inspector of Police, City Traffic West Police Station, Kochi – 682 011 as well as by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mulavukadu Police Station. Both the said officers have after conducting inquiries, reported that the complaint of the WPC 7270/2011 3 petitioner was without any basis. The Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam has also conducted a similar enquiry and has reached a similar conclusion. Therefore, the learned Govt. Pleader prays for dismissal of the writ petition. The learned Govt. Pleader further assures that if at any time the complaint of the petitioner is found to be substantiated, appropriate stringent action would be taken against such autorickshaws that violate the law. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the numbers of the autorickshaws made mention of by the petitioner in paragraph 2, at page 5 of the writ petition. 4. The learned Govt. Pleader submits that though enquiries were conducted specifically in relation to the numbers so supplied by the petitioner, no infraction of the law could be detected. 5. In view of the allegations and counter allegations made by the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader, it is clear that the matter would have to be subjected to further scrutiny and examination by the authorities. If the autorickshaws are conducting parallel services in the nature of stage carriage operation, certainly action would have to be initiated against such erring autorickshaws, as enjoined by law. However, in the WPC 7270/2011 4 limited nature of the jurisdiction that I am exercising under Art.226 of the Constitution, it is not possible for me to adjudicate the above issue. However, since it has been assured by the learned Govt. Pleader that the authorities would maintain a strict vigil on the activities of the autorickshaws and would take stringent action against those autorickshaws that violate the law, I do not think any further orders are called for in this matter at this stage. 6. In view of the above this writ petition is disposed of recording the undertaking of the learned Govt. Pleader that the authorities would keep a strict vigil on the autorickshaws plying on the route with the object of ensuring that they do not operate the autorickshaws in the same manner as a stage carriage and that they do not violate the law. The further undertaking of the learned Govt. Pleader that any person found to be violating the law would be proceeded against, strictly in accordance with law is also recorded. Ordered accordingly. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 7270/2011 5