SADASIVAN Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents not to interfere with the parking of petitioner's vehicles in the authorised taxi stand under the 4th respondent situated by the side of National Highway, known as "Triprayar contract carriage stand" passing through Thriprayar and Nattika and for other related reliefs.

(2.) Brief facts for the disposal of this writ petition are thus; petitioners are taxi owners and they park their vehicles in the authorized stand of the 4th respondent. Now all of a sudden, 2nd respondent came to the premises where the vehicles are parked and some officials of the 4th respondent directed the petitioners each owner can park only one taxi in the stand at a time. It is the contention of the petitioners that most of them are owners of more than one taxi. The 2nd respondent intimated the petitioners that 4th respondent has passed a resolution and issued a circular to the effect that if any owners are parking more than one taxi in the stand, they are directed to remove excess taxis other than one permitted at a time. It is the further contention of the petitioners that if at all any such resolutions or circulars are issued without hearing any of the aggrieved parties, the same is bad. Apart from that, according to the petitioners, Rule 344 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules prescribes the provision for parking and therefore the direction imposing the specified condition is not legal. In that view of the matter also, 4th respondent is not entitled to pass any resolutions or circulars completely violating the fundamental rights as well as the statutes. It is thus aggrieved by the alleged action of the 4th respondent Panchayat, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) The 4th respondent has filed a counter- affidavit denying the allegations and statements and claims made in the writ petition. It is contended by the 4th respondent that petitioners are parking their vehicles by the side of the National Highway which includes tempo travellers and other kinds of vehicles. That apart it is contended that the area where the vehicles are parked by the petitioner is a busy area of NH-17 and therefore, the 4th respondent thought of regulating the parking so as to accommodate other taxi owners also. According to the 4th respondent, in accordance with the powers conferred under Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, the Traffic Regulatory Committee has passed an order and directed the Panchayat to implement the same. Therefore, it is contended that, the action of the Panchayat is a consequent one to the order passed by the Traffic Regulatory Committee under Section 72 of the Police Act. That apart it is urged that consequent to the increase of taxi vehicles, parking of taxis have become a problem within the Panchayat area, since NH-17 is passing through the entire narrow stretch within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat. It is also contended that Panchayat is unable to provide space for parking vehicle since the land value has sky rocketed high and the Panchayat is not in possession of sufficient land so as to cater the needs of taxi operators. Therefore, it is the contention of the 4th respondent that the regulation made by the Traffic Regulatory Committee is executed by the Panchayat in order to see that traffic blocks and road accidents are avoided. Some of the vehicle owners, who have impleaded in this writ petition as additional respondents filed counter-affidavit supporting the action of the Panchayat. The learned counsel for the additional 5th and 6th respondents have contended that there are 23 taxis in that area other than the vehicles owned by the petitioners. Therefore, it is contended that unless and until the regulation is implemented, other operators especially single taxi owners find it difficult to park their vehicles in the available space by the side of the National Highway.