Evaluation of the strength of the temporary road and ensuring public safety.

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 4th 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