Musthafa.T.K vs Station House Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 10449 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
                                   &
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
    FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944
                        WA NO. 1092 OF 2022
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 28449/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
                                KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

    1       MUSTHAFA.T.K, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED,
            SALEENA MANZIL, NILAMBUR ROAD, WANDOOR.P.O.,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -679328.
    2       SAJAD T.K., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.MUSTHAFA
            THONIKADAVAN, SALEENA MANZIL, NILAMBUR ROAD,
            WANDOOR.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -679328.
            BY ADVS.
            G.HARIHARAN
            PRAVEEN.H.
            V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR
            K.S.SMITHA

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1       STATION HOUSE OFFICER, WANDOOR POLICE STATION,
            WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679328.
    2       THE SECRETARY, WANDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, WANDOOR,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679328.
    3       SAMYUKTHA AUTORIKSHAW THOZHILALI UNION, WANDOOR,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
            PIN-679328.


            BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
            BY ADV.MEENA.A.
            BY ADV.VINOD RAVINDRANATH


     THIS    WRIT   APPEAL   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
07.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A.No.1092 of 2022                    2




          K.VINOD CHANDRAN & C.JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
        -----------------------------------------
                    W.A.No.1092 of 2022
        -----------------------------------------
             Dated, this the 7th October, 2022

                                JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran, J.

The appellants were before this Court

contending that the ingress and egress into their

shopping complex is blocked by the parking of the

vehicles in front of it. An interim order was passed

on 10.12.2021 directing the autorickshaws and

transport vehicles not to be parked in front of the

shopping complex, obstructing the ingress and egress

to the employees or customers. The interim order was

modified on 04.03.2022 to permit parking without

causing obstruction to the ingress and egress. The

said interim order was taken in appeal, in which

Annexure-I judgment dated 31.05.2022 was passed.

2. The Division Bench noticed the earlier

judgment at Ext.P2, specifically with respect to the

very same subject matter agitated now before Court.

The Division Bench, while disposing of the writ

appeal, held that the enforcement of the impugned

modified interim order dated 04.03.2022 shall be

strictly in accordance with the directions and orders

already concluded in terms of Ext.P2 judgment. The

operative portion of Ext.P2 judgment is as follows:

"5. In such view of the matter, the police shall ensure that while the decision of the Traffic Regulatory Committee is implemented, it shall no way result in blocking the entry to the petitioner's building. Police shall scrupulously follow the decision of the Traffic Regulatory Committee and also shall ensure that on account of the parking, no blockage is caused to the petitioner's building. The 1st respondent shall comply with the directions as above."

3. The Division Bench, in Annexure-I, further

directed that the District Police Chief shall ensure

that a Senior Police Officer, not below the rank of

Deputy Superintendent of Police, shall visit the site

with due notice and also with intimation to the

1st respondent to ascertain that the parking of

autorickshaws is on the basis of the decision of the

Traffic Regulatory Committee as per Exts.R1(a) &

R2(b). The Senior Police Officer, so deputed to

inspect the location, was also enabled to give

necessary directions to the 1st respondent Station

House Officer to ensure meticulous compliance of the

directions and orders already rendered by this Court

in Ext.P2 judgment. The learned Government Pleader

submits that every autorickshaw getting a new permit

violates the order on the premise of the judgment not

binding them. It is for the Police to ensure that

Ext.P2 is complied with, de hors the time of grant of

permit. New or old, every permit holder of an

autorickshaw or a transport vehicle will be bound by

the directions of this Court and the petitioner

cannot be compelled to come before this Court, time

and again, for the very same relief.

           The        directions           in         Ext.P2       shall      be

meticulously      complied      with       and        the   writ   appeal     is

disposed of with the above directions.

Sd/-

                                            K.VINOD CHANDRAN,              JUDGE

                                                            Sd/-
                                                C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE

sp/07/10/2022





                            APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-


ANNEXURE I            TRUE   COPY  OF  THE  JUDGMENT  MADE  IN

W.A.NO.338/2022 DATED 31.05.2022 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.