Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 55443
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
WEDLAND WEDDINGS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/21508/2022
B.RENJITHKUMAR, M.R.ARUNKUMAR, P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH, C.R.SYAMKUMAR, ASWIN KUMAR, M J HELEN, P.A.ARUN ROY, SHAHIR, SHOWKATH ALI, SRI.SYAMANTHAK, BS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Traffic Regulatory Committee must prioritize public safety and stakeholder interests when designating autorickshaw stands, ensuring compliance with legal provisions.
Headnote:
Traffic - Autorickshaw Regulation - Kerala Police Act, 2011 (Sections 72), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Section 112) - The Traffic Regulatory Committee must act in public interest and consider all stakeholders when designating autorickshaw stands; past decisions were unsustainable.
Fact of the Case:
Writ petitions addressed a dispute over autorickshaw stands near a commercial building that obstructs access. The Traffic Regulatory Committee had made decisions regarding parking that the petitioners found impractical, prompting legal challenges regarding their legal grounding and stakeholder considerations.
Issues: Whether the Traffic Regulatory Committee's decisions regarding autorickshaw parking at the KSRTC Bus Stand were valid and consistent with public interests and legal obligations under the Kerala Police Act and the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The role of the Traffic Regulatory Committee extends beyond mediating disputes; it must ensure public safety, smooth traffic flow, and accommodate all stakeholder interests in its decisions about autorickshaw stands.
Final Decision: The decisions of the Traffic Regulatory Committee were set aside, and the committee was instructed to reconsider the parking arrangement considering all stakeholders.
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Both these writ petitions relate to regulating an Autorickshaw Stand near the KSRTC Bus Stand, Haripad, adjacent to NH-66. Hence, the writ petitions are heard together and being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14698 of 2021 is an autorickshaw driver and President of Autorickshaw Thozhilali Samrakshana Samithy. Autorickshaws are parked at the northern end of KSRTC Bus Stand at Haripad, which place is used as Autorickshaw Stand. About 70 autorickshaws are normally parked in the said Stand, states the petitioner. The
6th respondent, who owns 3.66 Ares land on the western side of the Autorickshaw Stand, constructed a commercial building there, without providing sufficient parking area. 3. The 6th respondent filed W.P.(C) No.26868 of
2019 to remove autorickshaws parked in the Stand and this Court directed the 3rd respondent to convene a meeting of the Traffic Regulatory Committee and identify places for parking. A meeting convened by the Traffic Regulatory Committee decided as per Ext.P2 that parking of the Autorickshaws should be without obstructing entrance to shops.
4. The petitioner submits that the decision taken as per Ext.P2 is impractical. Space for parking two autorickshaws is sufficient to enter into the Building Complex of the 6th respondent. The Building of the 6th respondent is not provided with sufficient Parking Area. The building does not have enough setbacks as per the Building Rules. The 6th respondent seeks to remove the Autorickshaw Stand only to facilitate parking of the vehicles of his customers. The petitioner therefore seeks to quash Ext.P2 decision of the 5th respondent-Traffic Regulatory Committee.
5. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21508 of 2022 is a Partnership Firm intending to run a showroom in ‘SAS Tower’ at Haripad. Respondents 7 to 9, who are autorickshaw drivers, are parking their autorickshaws in front of the showroom causing obstruction to ingress and egress to the showroom. In spite of requests, the autorickshaws are not removed. The area is not a notified Autorickshaw Stand, contends the petitioner. The complaints filed by the petitioner before various authorities were of no avail.
6. The petitioner argues that this Court has held in the judgment in Naushad M. and others v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (2) KHC 562 (DB)] that permitting parking of autorickshaws permanently in front of shoprooms on the side of Highway is an appropriation of the private right of owners of shops and houses, to have free access to Highways. The ratio laid down in the said judgment is applicable to respondents 7 to 9. It is the duty of the Government / Municipal authorities to provide suitable parking areas to autorickshaws. But, parking cannot be permitted, offending the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
7. The 4th respondent-Secretary to Municipality filed a counter affidavit. According to the 4th respondent, autorickshaws have been parking in that area for the last about 25 years. It is useful to the general public to travel from KSRTC Bus Stand to Taluk Hospital and to Haripad Railway Station. On 05.07.2022, a meeting of the Traffic Regulatory Committee (TRC for short) was held. The TRC heard all affected parties. The site was inspected. The auto drivers agreed to exclude six metre area from parking, to facilitate ingress and egress to the building in question.
8. The building possessed by the petitioner in W.P.
(C) No.21508 of 2022 is situated above the National Highway Line and there is no obstruction to the visibility of textile items displayed in the building. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21508 of 2022, however, made Ext.R5(b) complaint requesting to remove all autorickshaws being parked in front of the building.
9. A meeting of the TRC was convened again on
13.07.2022. The petitioners in both the writ petitions were present in the meeting. The TRC suggested that the existing 6 metre
