IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32042 of 2010(E)
1. MATHAI E.D.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
5. NILAMBUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SUDHEESHKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :23/11/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO.32042 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is an autorikshaw driver by profession. He has filed
this Writ Petition mainly with the following prayers:-
a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 2nd
and 3rd respondents to conduct a detailed enquiry on
the basis of Exts.P2, P8, P9 and P10 representations
and to cancel the permits of those vehicles which
violates the permit conditions.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 6th
respondent to find out the vehicles which are having
permits showing halting place as Mukkatta R.S and
Ranankuttu plying and halting at Nilambur town, and
to take appropriate action against them.
2. Admittedly, the petitioner has also taken up autorickshaw
driving as his avocation. In fact, his grievance is against issuance of fresh
permits. The petitioner cannot raise any objection with respect to the
granting of permits for autorickshaws or for any other motor vehicle in
accordance with the provisions under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act and
the Rules. In short, the petitioner cannot claim any legal right for seeking
W.P.(C) NO.32042/2010 2
for a direction to prohibit the respondents from granting fresh permits in
Nilambur Grama Panchayat. It is up to the authorities concerned to decide
in accordance with the provisions under Kerala Motor Vehicles Act and
the Rules whether fresh permits need be issued. Merely because granting
of fresh permits in a particular locality would adversely affect him and
reduce his income or would create congestion for parking would not
confer any such right on the petitioner to seek the reliefs sought for in this
Writ Petition. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the first relief
sought for in this Writ Petition. Relief No.(b) sought for reads thus:
“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, direction or order directing the 6th respondent to
find out the vehicles which are having permits showing
halting place as Mukkatta R.S and Ranankuttu plying
and halting at Nilambur town, and to take appropriate
action against them.”
There cannot be any dispute with respect to the position that all the permit
holders of motor vehicles, irrespective of the type of vehicles, are duty
bound to strictly adhere to the permit conditions. If there is any violation
of the permit conditions, the respondents are duty bound to take
appropriate action for violation of the permit conditions in accordance with
the provision under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules against those
who commits violation of the permit conditions. In other words, the
respondent authorities are duty bound to ensure compliance with
W.P.(C) NO.32042/2010 3
conditions of permit by the permit holders and to take appropriate action
against wrong doers.
Subject to the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
spc
W.P.(C) NO.32042/2010 4
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
September, 2010