IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1982 of 2010(W)
1. VARGHESE.T.M,AGED 54,S/O.MATHEW,
... Petitioner
2. OUSEPH.A.R,ARIMBOOR HOUSE,KUTTOOR,P.O,
3. PAUL.A.V,S/O.VAREED,ARIMBOOKARAN HOUSE,K
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VIYYUR POLICE
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,BHARATHIYA MAZDOOR SANGH
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.SAJEEV
For Respondent :SRI.N.NAGARESH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :03/03/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.1982 of 2010-W
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to
the Ist respondent to render adequate protection to the
petitioners for parking their vehicles in the taxi stand in front
of Daya hospital, Viyyur.
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as
follows:– Petitioners are owners of taxi cars. It is stated that
they had obtained contract carriage permit from the Regional
Transport Officer, Thrissur. It is also stated that there is a
taxi stand in front of Daya Hospital, Viyyur. It is further stated
that 8 to 10 taxi cars are parking there. It is stated that when
the petitioners tried to park their vehicles in the said stand the
drivers of the vehicles parking there threatened and objected
to it demanding Rs.25,000/- as ‘pakidi’ for parking there. It is
stated that petitioners have made a complaint to the Ist
respondent.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the parties
appearing. We suo motu implead The Corporation of Thrissur,
W.P.C No.1982/2010 -2-
Thrissur as the additional 3rd respondent. Learned counsel
for the Thrissur Corporation submits that actually there is no
parking there and that the Corporation has not allowed any
parking space. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent
submits that there is no obstruction; but there is only lack of
space. If there is a taxi stand, the 2nd respondent cannot
obstruct the petitioners. If there is any obstruction in the
matter of parking the vehicles by the 2nd respondent and if the
petitioners seek to park their vehicles without violating any of
the provisions of law, then the Ist respondent will afford
adequate protection to the petitioners against the 2nd
respondent from obstructing the petitioners from parking in an
area which is permissible.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS