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. 22133 of 2010(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MINI YESUDAS, ALOYSIOUS LAND, AYYATHOPE, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KOLLAM- 691 815. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUNIL JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM 691001. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691001. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, 691 001. 4. BABU, S/O.SHAMSUDEEN, HARIS MANZIL, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 691003. 5. VINOD, S/O.PRABHAKARA PILLAI, VADAKEPLAVILAYIL, EDAMANAKAVU, KAVANADU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 691003. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO. 22133/2010 J U D G M E N T Neither the petitioner nor her counsel is present. This writ petition is dismissed for default. 14/12/2010 SD/- K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE SD/- M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.22133 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The grievance voiced by the petitioner who owns an Innova car and is running the same as Taxi is that respondent Nos.4 and 5 who are taxi drivers parking their vehicles at Kavanad Taxi Stand are preventing the petitioner from parking her car at the Kavanad Taxi stand. The stand taken by respondents 4 and 5 is that in the permit issued in respect of the petitioner's vehicle, no provision is made for parking the vehicle at Kavanad Taxi Stand. On noticing that in Ext.P6 permit there was no mention of any parking area for the car, this Court on 15/06/11 passed the following order:- “We have commenced hearing. We deem it necessary to direct additional respondent No.6 to file a statement specifically explaining why W. P. C. No.22133 of 2010 -2- parking has not been specified in the permit issued to the petitioner. Is that an omission? If so, is the additional 6th respondent taking any steps to cure that omission/irregularity? Steps, if any, necessary in that direction shall be taken within a period of ten days from this date and before such a statement is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to take further necessary steps. We feel that the Panchayath/Corporation which is running the taxi stand also deserves to be impleaded as a party to ascertain their statement as to how they want their taxi stand to be used. Call on 04/07/2011.” 2. Pursuant to that order, the Regional Transport Officer, the 6th respondent has filed a statement. At paragraph 4 of the statement it is stated that Rule 156 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules stipulates that there shall be a condition in the permit that vehicle shall normally be stationed at the place specified in the permit by the transport authority granting the permit. But in the present case no specific place has been alloted for parking. According to the statement, it is the duty of the local authorities to provide space for parking of vehicles within its W. P. C. No.22133 of 2010 -3- area. In the taxi stand provided by the Corporation, there is provision to accommodate only ten taxies while there are as many as 22 taxies operating from the stand taking turns as directed by the police. According to the statement, granting permission to the taxies to park as per turns is a measure permissible in cases where no specific place for parking is provided in the permit. The statement concludes by stating that petitioner is free to take her vehicle anywhere subject to availability of space. 3. On behalf of Sri.M.K.Chandramohan Das, Standing Counsel for the Kollam Corporation, it was submitted that steps will be taken by the Corporation to allot more space for parking taxies at Kavanad. The learned Government Pleader submitted that there will not be any objection to the police being directed to allow parking of the petitioner's vehicle on turn along with other taxies which are operating from Kavanad area. 4. Under the above circumstances, we are of the view that the Writ Petition itself can be disposed of issuing the W. P. C. No.22133 of 2010 -4- following directions. 5. The additional 7th respondent will take requisite steps for identifying and allotting more area at Kavanad for parking of taxi cars. The third respondent will permit the petitioner's vehicle - Innova taxi car bearing Registration No.KL-02-AD-123 with its driver to park at Kavanad Taxi stand on turns treating the vehicle as a taxi operating at Kavanad. If there is any obstruction by R4, R5 or anybody else to such parking under permission from the third respondent, the third respondent shall remove the obstruction immediately. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/- W. P. C. No.22133 of 2010 -5-