IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5673 of 2010(H)
1. C.K.ABRAHAM,AGED 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. AUTORICKSHAW DRIVERS UNION(CITU)<
4. AUTO RICKSHAW DRIVERS UNION (BMS),
5. AUTO RICKSHAW DRIVERS UNION(INTUC),
For Petitioner :SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.N.NAGARESH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :09/03/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 5673 of 2010 H
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
Joseph, J.
The petitioner approached this Court for a direction to
respondents 1 and 2 to grant adequate police protection to the
petitioner for operating the vehicle KL 05/AA 6133 Autorikshaw
from Pampady Auto stand at Pampady in Kottayam district,
without any obstruction from the members of respondents 3 to 5
unions and their men.
2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as follows. The
petitioner is an autorikshaw driver by profession. He is the
owner of an autorikshaw bearing Reg. No. KL 05/AA 6133.
Ext.P1 is the certificate of registration in respect of the vehicle of
the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the permit granted by the Motor Vehicle
Department, in which the parking place of the petitioner is shown
W.P.(C).No. 5673 of 2010
2
as Pampady. Since the petitioner is not a member of any of the unions,
respondents 3 to 5 are not permitting him to park his vehicle in the
auto stand. He has taken a loan to purchase the autorikshaw and by
the action of respondents 3 to 5 he is put to great difficulties. The
petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 complaint before the second
respondent.
3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating
as follows. Petitioner has been granted permit to ply his auto at
Pampady town. There is a auto stand situated near Pampady town bus
stand. Pampady town bus stand, Chandakavala and Kalachantha are
distinct areas. There are approximately 34 autorikshaws plying from
the Kalachantha auto stand and knowing this fact the R.T.A. has
specified in the permit the parking place as Pampady. The case of the
respondents is that the petitioner is attempting to circumvent Ext.P2
permit.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel
appearing for the party respondents and the learned Government
Pleader.
W.P.(C).No. 5673 of 2010
3
5. Learned counsel for the party respondents submit that they
will not obstruct the petitioner from plying the vehicle or parking his
vehicle at Pampady as per Ext.P2. We record the said submission.
6. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. We direct
respondents 1 and 2 to grant adequate protection to the petitioner for
operating his autorikshaw bearing No. KL 5/AA 6133 in terms of
Ext.P2 without any obstruction from members of respondents 3 to 5
unions and their men and also give protection to the petitioner for
parking the vehicle at the place mentioned in Ext.P2. In case there is
any dispute as to the exact area by using the word ‘Pampady’, it is for
the police authorities to consult with the motor vehicle department so
as to render protection as ordered by this Court.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm