Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46091
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
JAYANTHLAL P – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE – Respondent
WP(C)/1448/2022
MATHEW KURIAKOSE, G.GIREESH, J.KRISHNAKUMAR
Local transport rights and issues of obstruction should be resolved by municipal authorities, not through court interventions.
Headnote:
Protection - Taxi Operations - N/A - The writ petition seeks protection from threats to the petitioner's right to operate a taxi, emphasizing that such rights must be addressed by local authorities and not in court directly.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking protection from illegal threats and obstruction by respondents, preventing him from operating his taxi from a designated stand.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issue of the petitioner's right to operate from the taxi stand should be resolved by the appropriate local authorities rather than the court.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection against threats and obstructions while operating a taxi from a municipal stand.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that matters relating to taxi operations and local transport rights must be referred to municipal authorities and not adjudicated in court unless there is a direct threat to life.
Final Decision: The writ petition is directed to be addressed by local authorities.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2022 This writ petition is filed seeking directions to respondents 1 and
2 to render adequate protection to the life and property of the petitioner by removing the illegal threat and obstruction being caused by respondents 3 to 5 so as to enable the petitioner to park and ply his Mahindra Jeeto Minivan (Auto-taxi) from Parassinikadavu Auto Taxi Stand adjacent to the Parassinikadavu Bus Stand. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 complaint before the police with regard to the obstruction caused by respondents 4 and 5.
2. Though notice was taken out to respondents 3 to 5, there is no appearance for the said respondents.
3. The learned Government Pleader would submit that on obtaining Ext.P2 complaint, the same has been duly forwarded to the Municipality to take an appropriate decision. It is further submitted that there is no approved taxi stand adjacent to the Parasinikkadavu Bus Stand.
4. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that the right of the petitioner to ply a taxi from the Parasinikkadavu auto-taxi stand is not a matter which can be decided by this Court in these proceedings. In case there is any threat to the life of the petitioner or any specific instance of attack by the respondents, the petitioner can inform the 2nd respondent who shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. With regard to the claim of the petitioner that he has a right to ply his auto-taxi from a particular point, I am of the opinion that the same has to be raised before the Secretary, RTO or the Municipality as the case may be.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
