K.C. Chacko vs Station House Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 10354 Ker

Kerala High Court

K.C. Chacko vs Station House Officer on 11 April, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 5036 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

          K.C. CHACKO
          AGED 67 YEARS
          S/O. P.C. UNNOONNI KALLUMPURATHUPADINJATTETHIL HOUSE,
          THUMPAMON P.O., PANDALAM, PIN - 689502
          BY ADVS.
          K.SASIKUMAR
          S.ARAVIND
          P.S.RAGHUKUMAR
          ANITHA CHANDRAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA
          DISTRICT, PIN - 689501
    2     DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
          DISTRICT POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, PATHANAMTHITTA,
          PIN - 689645
    3     REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
          REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA,
          PIN - 689645
    4     PANDALAM MUNICIPALITY
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANDALAM,
          PIN - 689501
    5     PATHANAMTHITT DISTRICT AUTORICKSHAW DRIVERS UNION,
          (BMS) UNIT, KURAMPALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
          HARI K., HARIKRISHNALAYAM, KURAMPALA SOUTH PO,
          PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689501
    6     PATHANAMTHITTA JILLA AUTO DRIVERS UNION (CITU) UNIT
          KURAMPALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY RADHAKRISHNA
          KURUP, KUDAJADHRI, MANNAM NAGAR PO., PERUMPULICKAL,
          PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689501
          BY ADV T.P.PRADEEP
          SRI.P.M.SHAMEER, GP
          SMT.T.S.MAYA - SC
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 5036 OF 2024               2

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be the owner of a building, portions of

which have been let out to various persons, to run commercial

enterprises. He says that, however, his lessees are finding it extremely

difficult to conduct their respective businesses because of the actions of

the autorickshaw drivers, under the leadership of respondents 5 and 6 -

Unions, in parking their vehicles blatantly obstructing their ingress and

egress; and asserts that this is in violation of the earlier declarations of

this Court in various judgments, including Noushad M. and Others v.

State of Kerala and Others [2019 (2) KHC 562(DB)] and Martin

Jacob v. Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam and Others

[2021 (5) KHC 655]. He says that, therefore, he had no other option

but to seek the help of Police through several complaints, one of which

has been produced as Ext.P13; but that since no action has been taken

thereon, he has been forced to approach this Court through this writ

petition.

2. Sri.K.Sasikumar - learned counsel for the petitioner, further

explained that the 'highhanded action' of the members affiliated to the

respondent - Unions, is manifest from the fact that they have put up a

board in front of the building reading 'Pandalam Municipality

Autorickshaw Stand no parking for other vehicles'; and that this is

luculent from Exts.P6 and P7 photographs. He submitted that,

therefore, his client is now finding it difficult to answer his lessees; and

hence prayed that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition be granted.

3. Sri.T.P.Pradeep - learned counsel for the respondent - Unions,

however, submitted that the afore assertions of the petitioner are

untrue and that the members of his clients have committed no act

which is in violation of law. He added that this writ petition is not

maintainable because the area in question is a notified parking area,

under the aegis of the Municipality and the Traffic Regulatory

Authority; and hence that his clients and their members are entitled to

park there, but assuring that this will not cause any obstruction to the

ingress and egress to the various shops in the building in question.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality

Smt.T.S.Maya, also affirmed that the whole area was earlier used for

the parking of autorikshaws; while portions thereof has now been

designated by the competent Authority, adding that this has been done

even before the construction of the building in question. She, however,

conceded that, once the building had been constructed - which had

been done with a valid building permit issued by her client - the

obstruction of its ingress and egress becomes untenable and that it is

for the parties to resolve such issues before the competent Authorities.

5. Sri.P.M.Shameer - learned Government Pleader, submitted that

there appear to be disputes between the petitioner, on the one hand

and the autorickshaw drivers in the area, on the other; but that the

Police have intervened to mark certain portions where the vehicles can

be parked, thus leaving front portions of the building open to facilitate

ingress and egress. He also affirmed that it is for the competent

Authority to take a final decision in this regard; and prayed that the

parties be directed to approach it for resolution of their internecine

disputes. He concluded saying that the Police, however, will ensure that

the present arrangement is continued until such time a different

decision is taken by any other Authority; and that law and order will

also be maintained, without anyone, including the party respondents,

breaching it in any manner whatsoever.

6. The afore submissions of the learned Government Pleader

certainly is a welcome one because, the Police cannot involve

themselves in disputes between the parties, particularly as to whether

the area in question is a designated parking space or otherwise. This

will depend upon the orders of the competent Authority and since the

Municipality also takes the stand that the area was earlier one where

autorickshaws were parked, prior to the construction of the building of

the petitioner, it is now essential that its ingress and egress is properly

protected because such construction admittedly happened with the

Building Permit obtained form the said Municipality itself.

Resultantly, I allow this writ petition, confirming the interim order

dated 08.02.2024; with a consequential direction to the Police to ensure

that any parking of autorickshaws by the members of the respondent -

Unions are done in such manner so as not to obstruct the ingress and

egress into the shops therein; with liberty being reserved to both sides

to approach the competent Authorities for a final resolution of the

parking disputes, including the marking of the areas for such purpose,

which shall be done as per law and without any avoidable delay.

Needless to say, the Police will also maintain law and order in the

area in question, without any violation of peace being allowed from any

side, including the parties to this litigation.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/15.4

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5036/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND REVENUE TAX RECEIPT DATED 21-05-2022 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KURAMAPALA Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 26-12-2022 ISSUED BY THE PANDALAM MUNICIPALITY FOR SHOP ROOMS NOS. 886A, B, C, D AND E BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 17-08-2022 ISSUED BY THE PANDALAM MUNICIPALITY FOR SHOP ROOM NO. 886F Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 26-12-2022 ISSUED BY THE PANDALAM MUNICIPALITY FOR SHOP ROOM NO. 886G Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 17-08-2022 ISSUED BY THE PANDALAM MUNICIPALITY FOR SHOP ROOM NO. 886H Exhibit P6 TRUE COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PARKING OF AUTORICKSHAWS IN FRONT OF THE PETITIONER'S BUILDING AT KURAMPALA JUNCTION Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE BOARD ERECTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 IN FRONT OF THE PETITIONER'S SHOP BUILDING Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 17-10-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15-11-2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17- 12-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS BEFORE THE NAVA KERALA SADAS Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17-12-2023 ISSUED FROM THE COLLECTORATE PATHANAMTHITTA Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE MESSAGE RECEIVED FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 02-02- 2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 02-02-2024 ISSUED FROM THE PANDALAM POLICE STATION RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Ext R-4[a] True Copy of the Permit given by Adoor RTO to Vinu Kumar

Exhibit R5(a) True copy of the Permit issued by the Adoor SRTA dated 16.10.2021 Exhibit R5(b) A true copy of the certificate issued by the Chair Person of Pandalam Municipality dated 30/1/2023 Exhibit R5(c) A true copy of the affidavit dated 16/03/2024 Exhibit R5(d) A true copy of the complaint before the Panthalam Municipality Health Inspector dated 12/02/2024 Exhibit R5(e) True copy of the representation submitted before the Thahsildar, Adoor dated 14/2/2024