RAJAN CHELLAYYAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be a contract carriage operator. According to him, the 2nd respondent is unnecessarily creating obstructions to the running of the contract carriage by him. This, the petitioner alleges, is, in turn, based on Ext.P2 letter issued by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-IV (Mobile), Trivandrum, to the 2nd respondent. In that, the learned Magistrate has brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent that an untoward incident had taken place on 17/11/06 consequent to an attack on the police personnel attached to the Mobile Court by persons running the parallel services at Balaramapuram. The learned Magistrate had hence advised the 2nd respondent to ensure that the parallel services are not operated within the limits of the Police Station.

(2.) I can find absolutely nothing wrong if the 2nd respondent only ensures the due and proper implementation of law by preventing unauthorised running of parallel services without due authority. Whether the 2nd respondent does it himself or is cautioned/advised by the Mobile Magistrate to do so, the action of the 2nd respondent cannot be found fault with.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the guise of the letter - Ext.P2 allegedly issued by the Magistrate, the 2nd respondent is interfering with the legal and justifiable activity of plying contract carriages by the petitioner and others similarly situated.