IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 9336 of 2004(J)
1. DRIVERS UNION K.T.U.C. (M)
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY, UZHAVOOR GRAMA
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. JOHN JOSEPH, PERUMBEL HOUSE,
4. JOSE. V.A., VAZHAMALAYIL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.SABU
For Respondent :SRI.PKM.HASSAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :06/03/2007
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 9336 OF 2004
---------------------
J U D G M E N T
An organisation called Drivers Union K.T.U.C.(M) Uzhavoor, has
filed this writ petition through its President Sri. Simon Parappanattu,
claiming that the said organisation has got “more than 50 taxi operators of
Uzhavoor town” as its members. The primary prayer in the writ petition is
extracted hereunder:
“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction
directing the 2nd respondent not to prohibit the parking of taxi
vehicles at the place allotted by Ext.P2”
2. A perusal of Ext.P2 shows that it is only a
recommendation/guideline for regulation of traffic in Uzhavoor town
prepared by one Professor Joseph George Kannat in August 2003. In
Ext.P2, the Professor has given certain suggestions as to how the traffic in
Uzhavoor town can be regulated in order to achieve development of the
town. Apparently, the suggestions made by the Professor are based on
his personal knowledge. In Ext.P2, the Professor has invited the recipient
thereof to attend the public meeting, which was scheduled to be held on
September 3, 2003 at the conference hall of Uzhavoor Co-operative Bank
under the chairmanship of Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala.
3. I have referred to Ext.P2 only to indicate that it is neither an
official document nor a circular/order issued by any competent statutory
WPC NO.9336/04 Page numbers
authority. Nothing has been brought to my notice to show that the said
document has been approved or accepted by any statutory authority for
implementation. It is the said document that is sought to be enforced and
implemented at the intervention of this Court by issuance of a writ of
mandamus to respondent No.2, the Sub Inspector of the Local Police
Station. Having perused the averments and the reliefs sought for in the
writ petition, I have no hesitation to hold that this is clearly an abuse of
process.
4. There is yet another reason which persuades me to take the
above view. Some of the traders in Uzhavoor town had earlier approached
this Court with a grievance that taxis and other public vehicles were being
parked in front of their business establishments causing inconvenience to
them. By judgment dated February 11, 2004 in W.P.C. No. 28346/03 this
Court had directed the 2nd respondent to make an “endeavor to regulate the
parking of vehicles so that minimum obstruction is caused to the
petitioners’ shop rooms till alternate parking arrangements are made.”
Ext.P1 is the copy of the said judgment in which the petitioner was of
course not a party.
5. It is seen that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 representation
before the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat requesting him to take
necessary steps to ensure that the 2nd respondent, does not take any
action against the taxi drivers in the light of Ext.P1 judgment. It is seen
WPC NO.9336/04 Page numbers
mentioned in Ext.P5 that the Police had been taking action against the
erring taxi drivers in obedience to the directions issued in Ext.P1 judgment.
It is the said action of the 2nd respondent that was sought to be prevented
by the petitioner in Ext.P5 representation through the intervention of the
Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. It is evident from Ext.P5 that the
petitioner had been trying to prevent the implementation of the directions
contained in Ext.P1 judgment.
6. Respondents No. 4 and 5 who are two of the traders in
Uzhavoor town have in their counter affidavit specifically contended that
the so called Drivers’ union in the name of which this writ petition has been
filed is not a registered one. It is also contented by these respondents that
such a union does not exist at all and that there is only one registered
drivers’ union at Uzhavoor, which is known as Uzhavoor Drivers’
Association. It is further contended that the petitioner, who claims to be the
President of Drivers’ Union K.T.U.C.(M), is not a taxi driver at all and that
he is only a local leader of a political party. Though the petitioner in his
reply affidavit has made a vague attempt to deny the allegation that his
union is not a registered one, no document has been produced to show
that his organisation has been registered.
7. Learned Government Pleader has invited my attention to the
written instructions received in the case from the Sub Inspector of Police,
Kuravilangad. It has been informed by the 2nd respondent that pursuant to
WPC NO.9336/04 Page numbers
Ext.P1 judgment, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala, the authorities of
Uzhavoor Grama Panchayat and others had earmarked and allotted
separate slots for parking of public vehicles in Uzhavoor town. Pursuant to
the above, the Police had taken steps to implement the decisions taken by
the authorities mentioned above. It has been further informed by the 2nd
respondent that at present there is no problem in the town as far as the
parking of public vehicle is concerned. No law and order situation or traffic
congestion had been reported after implementation of the decision taken
by the authorities concerned. The above submissions made by the learned
Government Pleader in the light of the written instructions from the 2nd
respondent are recorded.
. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that this is a fit case
where the petitioner has to be mulcted with cost payable to respondents 3
and 4 which is quantified at Rs.5,000/-. The cost shall be paid by Sri.
Simon Parappanattu, President of the petitioners’ union, within one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which it will be
open to the respondents 3 and 4 to execute the same in accordance with
law.
The writ petition is dismissed with cost as indicated above.
1.3.07 A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
This writ petition is posted as “to be spoken to” at the request of the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
WPC NO.9336/04 Page numbers
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that there was no attempt
on the part of the petitioner to circumvent the direction issued by this Court
in Ext.P1 judgment. What was sought for, was only for some appropriate
action to ensure that the directions contained in Ext.P1 judgment were
implemented. But a perusal of the prayer in the writ petition undoubtedly
indicates that the respondents wanted to get the suggestions or opinions
indicated in Ext.P2 to be enforced. As mentioned earlier, Ext.P2 document
was prepared by an individual who had no statutory sanction authority to
do so. No document has been produced before this Court to show that
Ext.P2 was liable to be enforced by issuance of a writ from this Court.
More importantly, it is evident from Ext.P5 that the attempt of the petitioner
was to implement all the directions contained in Ext.P1 judgment.
In the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to
modify the directions issued by me in the judgment dated March 1, 2007.
6.3.07 A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE
vps
WPC NO.9336/04 Page numbers
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE
OP NO.
JUDGMENT
21st DECEMBER, 2006