IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25352 of 2008(R) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THE VALLUVANAD WELFARE SOCIETY, 223, KOLAKKADA BUILDING, PATTAMBI ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER. BY ADV. MR.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. *ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED: R4. K.KUNHAHAMMED, S/O.MOHAMMED, KUNDIL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL P.O., PARAPPUR ROAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 25/03/2009 IN I.A.NO.12718/2008) R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUDHADEVI ADDL.R4 BY ADV.MR.SAJU J.VALLYARA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.25352/2008 R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30/11/2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO.34371/06 AND WPC.NO.33346/06 DTD. 22/03/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER TD. 3/12/2006 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DTD. 10/08/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(A): COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 26/12/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE ADDL.4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. EXT.R4(B): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.12311/2008 N DTD. 1/07/2008. EXT.R5(A): COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 19/12/2006 SUBMITTED TO THE MUNICIPALITY, DISTRICT COLLECTOR R.T.A.ETC. EXT.R5(B); COPY OF NEWS ITEM IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DTD. 9/09/2008. EXT.R5(C): COPY OF SKETCH SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE BUS STANDS, JUN MAIN ROAD ETC. AT PERINTHALMANNA. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25352 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner, which is a non-governmental organisation stated to be engaged in philanthropic activities in Perinthalmanna, has approached this court seeking a direction to restrain the police from altering the traffic reforms, which was in existence in the Perinthalmanna Municipal town area as on 8.8.2008 and to direct the police authorities to restore the traffic arrangement which was in existence as on 8.8.2008 in the Perinthalmanna Town. 2. It seems that there are two bus-stands in Perinthalmanna. A system of routing the buses which come to Perinthalmanna from different places was brought into force with effect from 30.11.2006, as evidenced by Ext.P1. But, the new system was an utter failure and the movement of vehicles in Perinthalmanna almost came to a stand still. Therefore, Revenue Divisional Officer, Perinthalmanna and Municipal W.P.(C).No.25352 of 2008 :: 2 :: Chairman, Perinthalmanna, who are the Convener and Chairman of Perinthalmanna Traffic Advisory Board respectively, contacted the police and directed necessary remedial measures to reduce traffic congestion. I consider it necessary to refer to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the statement filed by the 3rd respondent, which eloquently speak about the steps so taken in this regard: “6. It is submitted that the new system of traffic as decided on 30.11.2006 was implemented on 3.12.2006 on an experimental basis. But just within 3 hours, it was revealed that the new system is utter failure and the movement of vehicles in Perinthalmanna town almost comes to stand still. The block in N.H.213 towards Kozhikode road extended up to one Km., i.e., till presentation Higher Secondary School, near Bye-pass. The same block repeated at the Ootty Road which also extended up to Alshifa Hospital, which is also almost one Km., away from the Central Junction. Since things were going bad to worse, the R.D.O., Perinthalmanna and Municipal Chairman, Perinthalmanna who are the Convener and Chairman of Perinthalmanna Traffic Advisory Board respectively, contacted police and directed to enforce necessary remedial measures to reduce traffic congestion. W.P.(C).No.25352 of 2008 :: 3 :: Subsequently, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perinthalmanna convened emergency meeting of Perinthalmanna Taluk Private Bus Owners' Association attended by its Present Secretary and Secretary, Motor Workers' Union at his office. After this meeting with the permission of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perinthalmanna and Chairman, Perinthalmanna Municipality, police has implemented some alterations which include shifting of Pattambi- Cherpulassery sector stage carriages, from Manathumangalam Bus Stand to Manazhi Bus Stand. As such the buses coming from Kozhikode, Malappuram, Manjeri side passes through the Highway touching junction and Manazhi stand. The buses coming from Valancheri, Kottakkal side passes through the bye-pass road to Manathumangalam Bus Stand and returns through the central junction and Ootty road. The buses coming from Nilambur and Melattur side effected entry to Manathumangalam bus stand through bye pass road and returns through the central junction and Ootty road. With these system of traffic arrangement, all the trips except the buses coming from Malappuram side gets only a single touch in the town, thus the trips could be reduced to half. This modification made by the Police as per the direction of the Revenue Divisional Officer and Chairman of Road Traffic Advisory Board, Perinthalmanna, which is a W.P.(C).No.25352 of 2008 :: 4 :: legal action authorised by the competitive authority. 7. The above roads on which the stage carriages are diverted are in good condition and fit. The buses coming from Pattambi and Cherpulasseri side are diverted to Manazhi Bus Stand from Pathaikkara through the Bye-pass road. Only 2 or 3 buses are coming through the way towards Tirur and Kottakkal side i.e., from Ottappalam and Pattambi side. These buses were allowed to go direct to Manathumangalam Bus Stand without touching Manazhi Stand. The above implementation resulted good effect for the smooth plying of vehicles without any traffic jam in the Perinthalmanna Town.” 3. Going by the aforementioned statement, the modifications so effected to the arrangements brought into vogue in Ext.P1 seemed to work. But, in the meanwhile, the 4th respondent approached this court with W.P.(C)No.12311/08 complaining that as per the system then in vogue, the stage carriages operating in Perinthalmanna has to touch two bus stands viz.,Perinthalmanna Manazhi and Tharayil Bus Stand. The petitioner in the said writ petition is a stage carriage operator. The writ petition was disposed of W.P.(C).No.25352 of 2008 :: 5 :: under judgment dated 1.7.08 (copy of which has been made available for my perusal) with a direction to the respondent in the said writ petition, the District Superintendent of Police, to consider the representation filed by the petitioner and take appropriate action. It seems that the aforementioned direction issued by this court, obviously did not, in any manner, intend to an abrogation of the system which was then in existence. But changes were brought about going by the statement filed by the 3rd respondent. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the statement reads as follows: “10. On receipt of the copy of the above judgment of the Honourable High Court of Kerala, a meeting was held at District Police Office, Malappuram with the presence of the petitioner of the writ petition and his representatives, police officials and Municipal authorities on 8.8.2008 and decided to permit the 32 buses mentioned in the writ petition to enter direct to Manazhi Bus stand without touching Tharayil Bus stand on experimental basis for a period of one month from 9.8.08 to 9.9.08. I am also directed to submit the result of the W.P.(C).No.25352 of 2008 :: 6 :: implementation of the newly introduced system. The report in this regard is sent on 10.9.08. 11. The above writ petition is filed challenging this new system introduced. Due to this implementation traffic congestion increases day by day into many folds in Perinthalamnna town and the situation becoming worse. 4. It is under the aforementioned circumstances that the writ petition was filed, praying for the reliefs mentioned above. 5. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Ashok Kumar, learned Government Pleader Smt.Sudha Devi and Mr.Saju J.Vallyara for the additional 4th respondent. 6. There is no reason why this court should not go by the facts stated in the statement filed by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, if the modifications, which were brought about to the traffic norms brought into existence as per Ext.P1 achieved the desired results, there was no justifiable reason to have changed it. Of course, regulation of traffic is to be left to the Road Traffic W.P.(C).No.25352 of 2008 :: 7 :: Advisory Board and the police. If the police officials, therefore, find that the traffic has to be regulated in a particular manner, then it has to be done so, as evidenced by paragraphs 6 and 7 of the statement. But that was changed for no apparent reason. The direction issued by this court in W.P.(C)No.12311/08 to the Superintendent of police was only to consider the representation filed by the petitioner therein. It did not intend to change the system, which was then existing, if such system was the best available and could reduce traffic congestion. I take note of paragraph 12 of the statement that the meeting of the Road Safety Committee has to be convened and that modifications will be made to reduce the congestion. 1st respondent shall take steps to see that a meeting of the Road Safety Committee is convened, as early as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and if, on verification, it is found that the system, which was available as on 8.8.2008, was the best possible system for reducing the traffic congestion, steps shall be taken to restore the said system. I make it clear W.P.(C).No.25352 of 2008 :: 8 :: that I have not expressed any opinion as regards the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner as to the implementation of particular traffic norms which has to be adopted for the better interest of the public. The paramount consideration must be reduction of traffic congestion. I am sure that an official of the status of Revenue Divisional Offices shall take steps to see that interests of the public is subserved. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//