Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45802
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
JOHN E.P., AGED 70 YEARS S/O PAILY – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 36432 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.R.SUNIL, SMT.GOPIKA V.S.
For the Respondents: SHRI.S.KRISHNA MOORTHY, SHRI.BALAGOPALAN B., SHRI.V.KRISHNAN KUTTY, SMT.SREEDEVI RADHAKRISHNAN, SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE, SRI.P.PRIJITH, SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA, SRI.R.GITHESH, SHRI.AJAY BEN JOSE, SRI.MANJUNATH MENON, SRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT, SRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.
The court emphasized proper authority must resolve traffic regulation complaints, affirming the Traffic Regulatory Committee's jurisdiction under the Kerala Police Act.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Police Act, 2011 - Section 72 - Traffic Regulatory Committees - Writ petition filed seeks the removal of unauthorized parking obstructing business establishments - Respondents contended that parking is legal and has approval - Court allows petitioners to file complaint under Section 72 for resolution - Compliance with the law is emphasized. (Paras 2, 3, 6, 8)
(B) Authority of Local Government - Jurisdiction of Grama Panchayat regarding traffic regulations is affirmed - Previous case law referenced asserting the applicability of Section 72 by the Traffic Regulatory Committees for traffic management. (Paras 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners are business owners troubled by unauthorized parking of autorickshaws outside their establishments despite complaints, asking for action against the respondents.
Findings of Court:
Petitioners allowed to submit a complaint regarding parking, ensuring a response from the appropriate authorities.
Issues: The main issue was whether the parking was unauthorized and jurisdictional authority to relocate it.
Ratio Decidendi: It was determined that the parking existence is allegedly approved and legitimized, and the matter was directed to the appropriate local body per the law.
Result: Writ petition is granted with directions for complaint resolution.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaints regarding parking obstruction and response are addressed. (Para 2) |
| 2. defendants claim parking is authorized with approval from local authority. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court emphasizes procedural compliance with established local authority. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court directs appropriate resolution process in accordance with jurisdiction. (Para 8) |
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2025 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take necessary action to remove/relocate the unauthorised parking of autorickshaws in front of the petitioners’
establishments.
2. The petitioners are the owners and tenants in occupation of the shop rooms at the Pallithaazham Junction, within the territorial limits of the additional 10th respondent - Panchayat. The respondents 5 to 8 and their trade union members are indiscriminately parking their autorickshaws in front of the petitioners’ business establishments and causing hindrance to their free ingress and egress. Even though the petitioners had submitted repeated complaints before the official respondents, no action has been taken in the matter. Hence, the writ petition.
3. In the statement filed by the additional 10th respondent, it is contended that the 10th respondent has no authority or jurisdiction to relocate the autorickshaw stand and the same comes within the jurisdiction of the 9th respondent. Moreover, the autorickshaw stand is situated on a puramboke land on the side of the PWD road. There is no sufficient space in the bus stand to relocate the current autorickshaw stand. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, it is contended that the autorickshaws are being parked on the side of the main road in Pallithaazham Junction, which is not an unauthorised parking area. The said parking facility is in existence for the last 30 years with the approval of all the concerned statutory authorities. The 10th respondent has passed Ext.R5A resolution, approving the parking of the autorickshaws at the said stand. The Panchayat has also issued permit cards, permitting the autorickshaws to be parked at the said stand. There is no illegality being committed by the said respondents. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
5. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 9 and
10.
6. The principal grievance of the petitioners is regarding the indiscriminate parking of the autorickshaws by the respondents 5 to 8 and the members of their unions, which is causing obstruction to the free ingress and egress to the petitioners’ shop rooms.
7. Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act 2011, reads as follows:
“72 Traffic Regulatory Committees (1) In every Grama Panchayath, Municipality and Corporation Traffic Regulatory Committees shall be constituted as may be prescribed, for regulating matters in respect of traffic (2) The concerned head of the Local Government institution shall be the Chariman of the Traffic Regulatory Committee and the nominees of the District Magistrate, the District Police Chief, the Regional Transport Officer and the Executive Engineer of Public Works Department shall be the members of the said Committee.
(3) The Traffic Regulatory Committee shall issue orders, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) and the Kerala Road Safety Act, 2007 (Act 8 of 2007) and the rules made thereunder, for preventing danger, obstruction and inconvenience caused to the general public in respect of traffic in the following matters. Such orders issued shall be complied with by the Government Departments concerned, the officers and the general public, namely :-
(a) regulate the manner and time of traffic of all kinds in public places;
(b) regulate the gateways, festoons, banners, hoardings, signs, re Presentations, illuminated displays, co
