Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30095
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MANJULA CHELLUR , JC, A.M.SHAFFIQUE , J
AJAS K A – Appellant
Versus
AJEESH K A – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 30807/2013
['JESWIN P VARGHESE', 'SRI SHANAVAS KHAN BO,ASOK M CHERIAN,DINESH R SHENOY,T S SAUMYA']
Auto taxis require appropriate permits and designated parking areas as per municipal regulations and cannot claim rights in autorickshaw stands.
Headnote:
Protection - Taxi Parking - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections related to Permits and Parking Regulations - The court held that auto taxis require specific permits to park, and cannot demand parking in areas designated for autorikshaws.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, owners of registered taxi vehicles, sought police protection against auto drivers who obstructed their parking and passenger services in taxi-stands.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Municipality had not designated a separate area for auto taxis, which was essential for the petitioners to park legally.
Issues: Whether petitioners can park their vehicles in areas designated for autorikshaws without necessary permits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that without demarcated areas and requisite permits from municipal authorities, the petitioners do not have a right to park their auto taxis in the specified auto stands.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Shaffique, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court for police protection to park their vehicles in the taxi-stand and to take passengers and ply it as taxi through all the roads in Kerala. The petitioners are registered owners of motor-cab (taxi) having brand name “TATA MAGIC IRIS”. They have obtained contract carriage permit issued by Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam to ply their vehicles as taxi through all the roads in Kerala. The vehicle can carry three passengers.
2. The complaint of the petitioner is that respondents 4 to 9 are auto drivers attached to the stands where the petitioners' vehicles are also parked and they are not permitting the petitioners' vehicles to park in the auto stands and to take passengers.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by respondents 4 and 8 inter alia contending that auto taxies cannot be parked in the auto stands as auto is separately defined under the provisions of the Act and WP(C).30807/13 they cannot be treated as auto. The Municipality has stated that they have not demarcated any separate place for auto taxies whereas they have given specific areas to park autorikshaws and it is sent for approval to the regional transport authorities.
4. Having regard to the nature of contentions urged, we are of the view that auto taxies will have to obtain necessary permits to park their vehicles in a particular area to be notified by the Municipality for which they have to approach the Municipality. The petitioners cannot insist that their vehicles should be parked in the area earmarked for autorikshaws.
5. Under these circumstances, the request for police protection cannot be granted. However, it shall be open to the petitioners to approach the authorities concerned for demarcating necessary area for parking/halting in accordance with the procedure required.
The Writ Petition is hence dismissed.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE vgs30.1.14
