Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 11974
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
JOSE – Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 31011 OF 2023 | CON.CASE(C) NO. 1117 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.R.SURESH KUMAR, SRI.RAMABHADRAN K., SRI.VINEETH V.T.
For the Respondents: SRI.BIJU C. ABRAHAM, SRI.THOMAS C.ABRAHAM, SRI.BASIL MATHEW
The non-implementation of local traffic regulations constitutes a violation of administrative responsibilities, necessitating judicial intervention for enforcement.
Headnote:The petitioners approached the Court concerning unauthorized autorickshaw parking affecting business operations. The Court found that directions from the Traffic Regulatory Committee had not been implemented. The Court emphasized the need for compliance with previous orders, ultimately directing the authorities to enforce these provisions. The decision highlights the importance of local governance and regulatory compliance in traffic management and public safety.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenging unauthorized parking affecting business. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. court hears arguments on enforcement of traffic regulations. (Para 2) |
| 3. court emphasizes the need for compliance with traffic directions. (Para 5) |
| 4. court directs implementation of ext.p6 and closes contempt case. (Para 6) |
J U D G M E N T
[WP(C) No. 31011 of 2023 & CON.CASE (C) No. 1117 of 2025]
The petitioners are stated to be the residents of Panachamoodu in Vellarada Panchayat conducting business therein. The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the permission granted by the 5th respondent Panchayat for the parking of autorickshaws in the auto stand as well as exhibiting a board to the afore effect without gettting the opinion of the TrafÏc Regulatory Committee. According to the petitioners, the parking of autorickshaws is causing difÏculties for ingress and egress to the shops of the respective petitioners. The petitioners pointed out that inspite of a decision being taken by the Joint Transport Commissioner as evidenced by Ext.P6, the same has not been implemented by the Panchayat as well as the Police authorities. On account of the same, the petitioners point out that there are imminent dangers of accidents occurring and hence, seek for the removal of the illegal parking of autorickshaws as well as implementation of the directions contained in Ext.P6.
2. I have heard Sri.C.R.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri.Biju C. Abraham, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Panchayat and Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath, learned Government Pleader.
3. This Court, on 15.01.2025, taking note of the predicament pointed out by the petitioners as also the contents of Ext.P6 has directed the 5th and 6th respondents to ensure that the autorickshaw stand be shifted in implementation of the decision taken by the TrafÏc Regulatory Committee on 10.10.2023. The learned counsel for the petitioners point out that the directions issued as above were not implemented by the respondents and the petitioners have filed Cont. Case (C)
No. 1117 of 2025.
4. I have considered the rival submissions.
5. This Court also notices that Ext.P6 and the decision taken therein have become final. No valid reasons have been pointed out by the Panchayat for not implementing the directions contained in Ext.P6. This Court notices that, even after the directions issued on 15.01.2025, the Panchayat has not taken any positive steps to see why Ext.P6 is not being implemented. In the afÏdavit dated 21.07.2025 filed in the Contempt case, the Panchayat states that it is only after the construction of the market is completed, the directions in Ext.P6 could be implemented. A decision to that effect has also been taken by the Committee of the Panchayat. This Court is not in a position to accept the afore explanation offered through the afÏdavit. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the directions in Ext.P6 requires to be implemented. This is especially so in view of the concern pointed out by the petitioners, which, in my opinion is correct, specifically with reference to the decision taken as noticed in the order dated 15.01.2025.
6. Therefore, W.P.(C). No.31011 of 2023 will stand disposed of directing the 5th and 6th respondents to positively implement Ext.P6, if necessary, after obtaining assistance from the police authorities represented by respondents 3 and 4. In view of the disposal of the writ petition as above, though this Court is not at all satisfied with the explanation noted in the afÏdavit noticed as above, I close the Contempt of Court case.
Sd/-
