Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 50449
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
ANIKUTTAN K., GOPAKUMAR P., RANJITH C – Appellant
Versus
THE TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 7640 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.RESHMA E., SMT.ATHEENA ANTONY, SMT.ANJITHA SANTHOSH, SMT.ANJU JOSEPH
For the Respondents: SHRI.R.RAJPRADEEP, SRI.R.AZAD BABU, SHRI.SACHIN RAMESH, SMT.SREEDEVI S., SR GP, SMT PREETHA K K
Procedural fairness in administrative decision-making under the Police Act requires a hearing before enforcing regulations affecting individual rights.
Headnote:The petitioners, consisting of auto-rickshaw drivers, contested the Traffic Regulatory Committee's decision limiting parking at a central junction, claiming lack of due process as per Section 72 of the Police Act. The court mandated a fair hearing before final decisions under the Act. Ultimately, the writ petition was concluded with the parties directed to comply with a subsequently agreed-upon decision.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. issue of procedural fairness in administrative decisions (Para 2) |
| 2. court's directive for a fair hearing (Para 3) |
| 3. outcome based on mutual compliance with agreed decision (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 decision of the 1st respondent.
2. The petitioners are auto-rickshaw drivers, who are operating at the Thakazhy Central Junction, near the Ambalapuzha-Thiruvalla State Highway, for the last 25 years. On 11.06.2023, the 8th respondent had filed W.P.(C) No.19356/2023 before this Court alleging that the petitioners were illegally parking the auto-rickshaws in front of their property and causing inconvenience and obstructions to them. The 1st respondent/the Traffic Regulatory Committee, had held meetings on 21.07.2023 and 24.07.2023, and has passed Ext.P4 decision regarding parking of auto-rickshaws. One of the decisions in Ext.P4 decision was to park only four auto-rickshaws at a time in front of the building of the 8th respondent. The petitioners are strictly complying with the said decision. Notwithstanding the decision in the above writ petition, the 8th respondent approached this Court and filed the above writ petition. On the basis of the direction in the above writ petition, the 1st respondent has passed Ext.P5 order, without hearing the petitioners and without constituting the Traffic Regulatory Committee as envisaged under Section 72 of the Police Act . Therefore, Ext.P5 decision is violative and is liable to be quashed.
3. When the writ petition came up for consideration on 27.03.2025, this Court had directed the 1st respondent to conduct a hearing of the petitioners and all the similarly placed auto-rickshaw divers before taking a decision under Section 72 of the Police Act .
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 7, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 2 to 6 and the learned counsel for the 8th respondent.
5. It is conceded by all the sides that, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 27.03.2025, the 1st respondent has passed Ext.P8 proceedings on 16.04.2025. The petitioners as well as party respondents are willing to adhere to the Ext.P8 decision. Therefore, the writ petition can be disposed of, by recording the undertaking of the parties.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioners and the 8th respondent to strictly comply with Ext.P8 decision. In case any party violates there is any violation of Ext.P8 decision, the 6th respondent is directed to take appropriate action, in accordance with law.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
