IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11507 of 2010(K)
1. RENJITH.R., S/O.RAJAKURUPPU, RESIDING
... Petitioner
2. RAJEEVAN, S/O.APPUKUTTY, KOKKARANIYIL
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL),
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUVALLY,
5. JAYADASAN, S/O.UNNERI NAIR,
6. MUHAMMED RAFEEQUE, S/O.MOSAKOYA,
7. SULAIMAN.V., S/O.ATHRUMAN,
8. BALAN NAIR, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, 9/347,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
For Respondent :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :08/04/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P(C). NO. 11507 OF 2010 K
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th April, 2010
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
Petitioners seek a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to provide
adequate police protection to the petitioners’ life and to ply their
autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-57-254 by parking the
same at Narikkuni, Calicut District in compliance with Ext.P1
permit conditions. Obstruction is alleged against respondents 5
to 8.
2. A Counter Affidavit is filed on behalf of the party
respondents. Therein, the case set up is that the second
petitioner is the person belonging to Narikkuni Panchayat. It is
further stated as follows:
Ext.P1 Permit shows that the parking place is at Narikkuni.
The autorickshaw was being operated by a driver belonging to
Narikkuni, during which time, there was no objection. It is
WPC.NO.11507/2010 K 2
stated that Ext.R5(a) is a decision taken by the Co-ordination
Committee of all political parties, that the autorickshaw having
Permit in Narikkuni Panchayat should be driven by a driver
belonging to the same Panchayat. It is also stated that because
the first petitioner is from a different Panchayat, the fifth
respondent requested the owner of the said vehicle to retain a
driver of Narikkuni Panchayat. It is for the owner to make a
complaint, it is stated. It is, inter alia, stated that the party
respondents have no objection in the autorickshaw parking in
Narikkuni itself.
3. We heard the learned counsel appearing. Learned
counsel for the party respondents reiterated the same
submissions.
4. We are of the view that there is absolutely no merit in
the objections of the party respondents. A Permit has been
granted under the Motor Vehicles Act under which the
autorickshaw can be parked at Narikkuni. The agreement which
is set up is clearly opposed to the terms of the said Permit and it
WPC.NO.11507/2010 K 3
is also against the legal right of a citizen to acquire licence and
ply the vehicle. Therefore, there is no merit in the objection on
the basis of which the obstruction is being done. It is clear that
there is obstruction also. In such circumstances, we dispose of
the Writ Petition by making the interim order absolute.
Sd/=
K.M. JOSEPH,
JUDGE
Sd/=
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS,
JUDGE
kbk.
// True Copy //
PS to Judge