Reshmi Sasidharan vs The Station House Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 5875 Ker

Kerala High Court

Reshmi Sasidharan vs The Station House Officer on 23 February, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1945
                        WP(C) NO. 819 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

          RESHMI SASIDHARAN
          AGED 42 YEARS
          W/O.SASIDHARAN, KUNNATHUKALATHIL HOUSE, KUMARAKOM P.O,
          KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686563
          BY ADVS.
          G.CHITRA
          K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          KUMARAKOM POLICE STATION, KUMARAKOM, NEAR KUMARAKOM
          MARKET ROAD, KUMARAKOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686563
    2     DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
          KOTTAYAM COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
    3     SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
          HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          SECRETARIAT MAIN BLOCK, STATUE, PALAYAM,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
    4*    KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD
          CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR STADIUM RD, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
          SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
    5*    THE TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE
          KUMARAKOM PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON,
          KUMARAKOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUMARAKOM,
          KOTTAYAM-686563.
          *(Addnl.R4 & R5 are impleaded as per order dated
          18.01.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024)
   6**    M.V.MURALEEDHARAN
          AGED 65 YEARS,
          S/O VELAYUDHAN, MELEKKARA HOUSE, KUMARAKOM P.O,
          KOTTAYAM
   7**    STEPHY VARGHESE
          AGED 31 YEARS,
          S/O VARKEY THOMAS, MALEETHARA HOUSE,
          KUMARAKOM P.O, KOTTAYAM.
          **(Addn.R6 and R7 are impleaded as per order dated
          23.02.2024 in I.A.No.2 of 2024)
          BY ADVS.
 WP(C) NO. 819 OF 2024           2

          A.K.HARIDAS
          GEORGIE JOHNY
          T.A.SHAJI (SR.)(S-334)

          SRI. K.V.MANOJ KUMAR, SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 819 OF 2024                  3

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be the registered owner of a Medium

Passenger Vehicle (MPV), covered by Ext.P1 Registration credentials and

Ext.P2 Temporary Permit. She alleges that she has been now discriminated

in a hostile manner by the respondents, in not being allowed to operate the

said vehicle through a Road, which is a temporary one created pending the

construction of the bridge called "Konnathattu Bridge"; and therefore, that

she has been constrained to approach this Court, through this writ

petition.

2. Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair - learned counsel for the petitioner,

pointed out, inviting my attention to Ext.P3, that there are boards placed

on the road in question, notifying that there is no entry for Heavy Vehicles,

but that Light Motor Vehicles (LMV) and MPV have been permitted. He

argued that when all other identical buses and vehicles are allowed to ply

through the road, it defies reason as to why his client alone has been

discriminated, in being refused such permission. He thus prayed that the

reliefs sought for in this writ petition be granted.

3. In response, the learned Government Pleader - Sri.Rajeev Jyothish

George, submitted that a statement has been filed on record on behalf of

respondent No.4, wherein, it has been averred that it is only to facilitate

unobstructed traffic, while demolishing the existing bridge, that the

temporary road in question has been constructed through the 'Bund' and

that vehicles thus diverted. He added that, since the road is only a

temporary one, which cannot accommodate Heavy Vehicles, a decision was

taken by the competent Authorities to allow only 'LMV'; with boards

erected on either side of the said road, intimating the public of such. He

submitted that the scenario in the area in question is unfavourable

because, even though cross bars were also erected, so as to stop any

vehicle which is not an 'LMV' from using the 'Bund Road', it has been

demolished by antisocial elements; and therefore, that the petitioner

cannot now seek any further reliefs in this writ petition.

4. Sri.Georgie Johny - learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.5, submitted, adverting to the condition of the road in question, that

necessary regulations and restrictions are necessary to be imposed; and

affirmed that a decision has been taken by his client to allow only 'LMV' to

ply on it. He concluded saying that, the decisions taken by his client are

based on the recommendations and directions issued by the 4 th respondent;

and therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed as against them.

5. Sri.K.V.Manoj Kumar - learned Standing Counsel for respondent

No.4, adopted the afore recorded submissions of the learned Government

Pleader; adding to it saying that, unless the precautions now adopted by

his client are implemented in its letter and spirit, it would cause

cataclysmic effect in future, if the 'Bund Road' is to give away or to

collapse. He vehemently asserted that the allegation of the petitioner, that

there are other 'MPVs' plying the 'Bund Road' is not correct and that only

'LMV' will be allowed.

6. Sri.A.K.Haridas - learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7,

supported the above submissions of the learned Government Pleader,

arguing that, if heavy vehicles or even 'MPVs' are allowed to ply through

the road in question, it will cause its deracination and render the lives of

the nearby residents impossible.

7. In reply, Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, refuted the afore submissions of

Sri.K.V.Manoj Kumar, predicating that his client has given details of at

least five other vehicles, which are identical in nature to that of her, which

are being allowed to ply through the road in question. He reiterated that,

when other buses - which are MPVs - are allowed to do so, the denial of

the same to his client alone is illegal and unlawful.

8. When I evaluate the afore rival submissions, on the touchstone of

the law declared by this Court in various earlier judgments, in matters

relating to public safety and the use of roads, it is the opinion of the

experts which is relevant; and which cannot be substituted by that of this

Court.

9. In the case at hand, the 4th respondent says that they have

evaluated the strength of the temporary 'Bund Road', to find that only

'LMVs' can be allowed to ply through it, and not even 'MPVs' - the class to

which the petitioner's vehicle belong.

10. As I have already said above, this is not a decision that this Court

can interdict or intervene into; but there is some force in the submissions

of Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair that, if other similar classes of vehicles are

being allowed, it would be unjust that the petitioner's vehicle alone is

denied permission to operate through the road. This is a pure question of

fact, which will have to be evaluated by the 4 th and 5th respondents

appositely because, if other identical vehicles are allowed, then certainly,

the denial of such permission to the petitioner may be untenable.

In the afore circumstances, I close this writ petition without acceding

to any of the request of the petitioner; however, directing respondents 4

and 5 to ensure that other than 'LMVs' no other vehicles are allowed to ply

through the 'Bund Road'; and, if in future, they are to give exemption to

'MPVs', then the same benefit shall be made available to the petitioner's

vehicle also.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/26.2

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 819/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF REGISTRATION KEPT BY THE MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE VEHICLE DATED NILL Exhibit P2 :- TRUE COPY OF THE PRESENT PERMIT ISSUED TO THIS VEHICLE VALID TILL 23.01.2024 DATED 06.01.2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING SUCH RESTRICTION EXHIBITED AT THE ENTRY DATED NILL Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.12.2023 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OF EXHIBIT.P4 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.12.2023 Exhibit P6 True copy of the information dated 19.12.2023 issued from the office of the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam