IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 26TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 21267 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- M.J.SHAJI, MUNDACKAL HOUSE, VAZHAPPILLY,MUDAVOOR PO, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.PRASANTH M.P RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, R.T.O.OFFICE,MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 6. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH FOR ADDL.R7 R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN R3 TO R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.B. RAMANAND. ADDL.R7 BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C). No. 21267 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J, The petitioner claims to be the leader of a trade union of autorickshaw drivers. He says that he himself is an autorickshaw driver. There is a rival in the form of additional 7th respondent ( a person seeking impleadment). The case sought to be made out is that the petitioner is being harassed by the police officials under the guise of a decision of the Municipality to have all autorickshaws painted in a particular colour. The plea raised is that the decision of the Municipality, if at all there is any, would run contrary to the Motor Vehicle Rules. 2. We are clear in our mind that this is not a matter to be resolved here. Respondents 4 and 5 will ensure that any action taken against any person on the basis of the so-called decision of the second respondent Municipality and the third respondent RTO will be strictly in WPC. 21267/2010. 2 conformity with law and there would be no unauthorised intrusion into the rights of the petitioner. It is further clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of appropriate remedies being sought for against any decision of either among respondents 2 and 3 in accordance with law. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.