RAJAGOPAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri.P.Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 & 3 to 6 and Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation appearing for the 2nd respondent . In the nature of the order proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to contesting respondents 7 to 10 will stand dispensed with.

(3.) According to the petitioner, contesting respondents 7 and 8 and their members are illegally parking various vehicles in front of the shop room of the petitioner which is situated in Ward No.24 of the 2 nd respondent Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation. The petitioner would assert that the said location where the parking of vehicles are being made in front of the petitioner's shop room is not a parking place which is notified or permitted either by the 2 nd respondent Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation authorities or by the 3 rd respondent Regional Transport Authority in accordance with the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act or by the Traffic Regulatory Committee constituted as per the provisions of the Kerala Police Act, and hence the petitioner would point out that the parking of said vehicles in front of the shop room of the petitioner is illegal and unlawful, and that the petitioner has made various complaints to various authorities including respondents 2 to 6 for abating the said problem, and no effective action is forthcoming from any of the respondent authorities concerned. The petitioner would contend that the abovesaid act of the contesting respondents in so parking of vehicles would amount to contravention of the provisions contained in Sections 472 and 473 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, Section 117 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as well as Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, which deals with constitution and functions of the Traffic Regulatory Committee. The petitioner would assert that no permission or approval has been granted either by the 2 nd respondent Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation or by the 3 rd respondent Regional Transport Authority, or by the Traffic Regulatory Committee for parking of vehicles in the abovesaid location right in front of the petitioner's shop, etc.