Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 128
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
RAMACHANDRAN PANAKAM – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C)/28417/2017
SRIP.S.SUJETH, SMT.M.R.REENA, SMT.MINI GOPINATH, CGC SRI. JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN, CGC FOR R1 SRI.B.G.BIDAN CHANDRAN, SC FOR R2 AND R3 SRI.M.V. KINI SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SRI.E.C.KURIAKOSE SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN SMT.NOVA SEN ABRAHAM SRI.C.HARIKUMAR FOR R7 SRI.K.R.RANJITH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R4-R6
Blockage of public roads by private entities violates citizens' fundamental rights unless justified by law and public interest.
Headnote:
Constitution - Right to Movement - Article 19(1)(d) - Article 19(5) - The court held that the blockage of a highway by a private toll company violated fundamental rights and was not justified as a reasonable restriction.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged the blockage of a parallel road near a toll plaza, alleging violations of fundamental rights to freedom of movement due to lack of alternative access and adverse impacts on local residents.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined previous decisions regarding toll plaza operations and found that the blockage was intended to benefit a private company, thus violating Article 19(1)(d) without justifiable state interest.
Issues: Whether the Toll Plaza Company could legally block a parallel road, restricting citizens' right to free movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the implementation of the blockade did not satisfy the requirements of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5) as it primarily served a private interest.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
S. Manikumar, CJ
Instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or appropriate writ, to declare the blockage of the Old National Highway Road near the Toll Plaza at Paliakkara in Thrissur District as unconstitutional, illegal and against the law.
ii) To call for the entire records leading to the issuance of the Ext-P4 and to set aside the same by way of a writ of certiorari.
iii) To declare that the 'illegal blockage of Old National Highway Road' with Iron Barricade near Toll Plaza at Paliakkara, Thrissur as violation of fundamental right of Movement guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India .
iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, directing the respondents 4 & 5 to remove the iron barricade on the Old National Highway, parallel to the Toll Plaza Road at Paliakkara, in the interest of justice and equity.
v) Issue a writ, order or direction to the 5th & 6th respondents to monitor the usage of the 'Old National Highway Road' at Paliakkara Thrissur and to consider the Ext-P1 & P3 representations submitted by the Petitioners, within a time limit stipulates by this Hon'ble Court.”
2. Short facts leading to the writ petition are as under:
Mr. Ramachandran Panakam, the 1st petitioner, is a social worker presently acting as the District Secretary to PUCL, Thrissur District (People's Union for Civil Liberties), a Human Rights Body founded in India in the year 1976, by the veteran leader Late Jeyaprekash Narayan. Mr. Sreenivasan, the 2nd petitioner, is also a former Secretary to PUCL, and Mr. Dheeraj and Mr. Sajith, petitioners 3 & 4, are the local residents, where the subject matter of the writ petition is pertaining to.
Petitioners have contended that a parallel road to Mannuthi-Angamaly stretch of the National Highway had been blocked by Paliakkara Toll Plaza Company, with an intend to prevent skipping of Toll Plaza.
The question of law raised before this Court by the petitioners is whether the Toll Plaza Company can insist the people to use the road through which the Toll Plaza locates, by blocking a parallel road, in which the citizens of India have the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India , to move freely throughout the territory of India.
Petitioners have further contended that a Private Toll Plaza Company cannot claim any benefit under the imposition of reasonable restrictions, since the blockage of the parallel old National Highway Road violates the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India .
Article 19 (5) permits the State Government to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of movement on its citizens only in two grounds, viz., (i) in the interest of general public, and (ii) for the protection of the interest of Scheduled Tribes.
In the present context, the restriction imposed by the executives, in collusion with a private company, will not come under the purview of Article 19(5). The blockage of the road is only intended to protect the interest of a private company. Reasonable restriction can only be imposed either by the Parliament and Legislatures, but in the present case, the decision has been taken by the executives, in collusion with the private company officials.
Petitioners have also contended that the mass petition submitted to both the District Collector and R.D.O has been discarded and no action has been taken so far. There are incidents of fire on straw at paddy field, and even the Fire Engine could not reach the spot, on account of the illegally erected barricade, and ultimately suffered heavy loss. It was stated that even a patient died on the way to the hospital, due to heavy queue in the toll plaza.
Petitioners have also contended that they have no other efficacious remedy, other than to approach this Court, seeking to declare the blockage of the road, in furtherance of the decision, as h
