Public authorities must adhere to statutory procedures before imposing restrictions on public road access; failure to do so renders such restrictions unlawful.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner seeks a direction to the 2^nd respondent, Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation Project, to remove the boards placed at the entrance and exit of the PWD road prohibiting the movement of heavy vehicles, as the said restriction is alleged to be illegal and arbitrary.

2. The petitioner contends that he is engaged in the business of operating a crusher unit and that all vehicles transporting materials to and from the unit necessarily pass through the Malankara Dam Road/MVIP Road to reach the main Thodupuzha–Anakayam Road. It is submitted that from the second week of December 2022, the petitioner’s lorries were stopped by the 3^rd respondent on the ground that movement of heavy vehicles through the said road had been prohibited by the 2^nd respondent, even though, at that point in time, no formal prohibition order had been issued. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent erected boards at the entrance and exit of the said road, as evidenced by Ext.P2, indicating a prohibition on the movement of heavy vehicles.

3. It is stated that the petitioner made enquiries with the 2^nd respondent regarding the basis for imposing such a restriction, but received no response, which constrained the petitioner to submit Ext.P3 application under the Right to Information Act on 15.12.2022. Ext. P4 reply dated 19.12.2022 was thereafter issued, wherein the 2nd respondent claimed that, being the custodian of the road, he is empowered to impose conditions, including prohibition of heavy vehicles, for the purpose of protecting the road.

4. The petitioner disputes the said stand and contends that the road in question is a public road to which the public has an unfettered right of access, and that the 2^nd respondent has no authority under law to impose restrictions on vehicular movement. It is argued that any prohibition or regulation of traffic can be effected only in accordance with Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, and the procedure contemplated therein has not been followed.

5. It is further contended that Ext. P5 notification dated

29.09.2015 issued by the State Government, restricting the movement of goods vehicles having a loading capacity of more than 10 tonnes through roads having a width of less than 8 metres, has no application to the subject road, which has a width exceeding 8 metres, and in any event, the operation of the said notification has been stayed by this Court vide Ext.P6 interim order dated 25.10.2016 in W.P(C) No. 12963/2016. The petitioner also contends that the said notification itself is issued in excess of the jurisdiction conferred on the State Government under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act .

6. Heard Sri. Enoch David Simon Joel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.S. Appu, learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

7. The 2^nd respondent, Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation Project, in the counter affidavit, contends that the restriction on the movement of heavy vehicles was imposed in the interest of maintenance and protection of the canal and hydraulic structures under the Irrigation Department. It is stated that the restriction was effected by placing boards in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 37 , 38 and 43 of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act , 2003. It is further contended that, in terms of Ext. P5 notification, entry of heavy vehicles is prohibited on roads having a width of less than 8 metres, and the road in question has a width of less than 6 metres, while the bridge across the right bank main canal is only about 4 metres wide.

8. It is submitted that the movement of heavy vehicles over