SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68464

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
MUHAMMED MANSHEEB – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1123 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.A.JOHNSON
For the Respondents: PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU, NEENU BERNATH, SAJU S. DOMINIC, SC-SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN, SC-SRI.T.NAVEEN

The court affirmed that timely consideration of public grievances is essential for effective governance.

Headnote:(A) Government Order No.59/2015/TRAN - Prohibition of goods vehicles over 10 tonnes on roads less than 8 metres wide - Petitioners allege violation of the Government Order by the 6th respondent. (Paras 2 and 3)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court directs the Municipality to consider and dispose of the pending representation expeditiously, emphasizing adherence to legal processes without reflecting on the merits of the case. (Paras 3)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners reside along Ananganmala Road and have submitted a representation regarding violations of a Government Order prohibiting heavy vehicles on narrow roads.

Findings of Court:
The court orders the 4th respondent to address the representation expeditiously within 60 days.

Issues: The key issue was the pending status of the petitioners' representation regarding the operation of heavy vehicles.

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the importance of timely decisions by administrative bodies on representations lodged by citizens.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions for expeditious action.

Table of Content
1. violation of government order regarding vehicle restrictions (Para 2)
2. court's directive for expeditious handling of representations (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 09th day of September, 2025 The writ petition is filed to direct the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 representation expeditiously.

2. The petitioners are residing on either side of Ananganmala Road passing through Ward No.1 within the territorial limits of the 3rd respondent - Municipality. As per Ext.P1 Government Order, goods vehicle having a loading capacity of more than 10 tonnes are prohibited from using roads having a width of less than 8 metres. However, the 6th respondent is plying goods vehicles through the said road in violation of Ext.P1 Government Order. In the said backdrop, the petitioners have submitted Ext.P2 representation before the 3rd respondent on 02.11.2023. But, the same has not been considered till date. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the respective Standing Counsel for the respondents 2, 3 and 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent.

On a consideration of the facts and the materials on record, particularly that Ext.P2 representation is pending consideration before the 3rd respondent since 02.11.2023, without expressing anything on the merits of the said representation, I dispose of the writ petition, by directing the 4th respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 representation, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 60 days from the date of production of a copy of this judgment, after affording the petitioners and the 6th respondent an opportunity of being heard.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top