The court affirmed the petitioner's right to operate a taxi without undue interference, upholding fundamental rights to livelihood and movement.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner is being prevented by respondents 1 to 3 from parking his taxi in the taxi stand in front of Uday Samudra Hotel, Kovalam. It is submitted that the petitioner is also prevented from plying his taxi bearing registration No. KL-01/BR-3031 in and around Kovalam area. The petitioner seeks a direction to provide police protection to him.

2. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the petitioner is running an online cab service and the respondents 1 to 3 are traditional taxi drivers who are not providing any online cab service. It is submitted that the petitioner need not park his vehicle in the taxi stand in front of the hotel in question for the provision of online cab services. It is also submitted that the party respondents have not prevented the petitioner from plying his taxi in Kovalam area. It is also submitted that if the petitioner is permitted to park his taxi at the taxi stand in front of the Uday Samudra Hotel, he must comply with the queue system in place at the paid taxi stand.

3. The learned Government Pleader submits that following complaint of the petitioner, conciliation talk was held and the matter was treated as settled by the police authorities. It is submitted that this conciliation was in the month of March 2024.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for official respondents and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and having regard to the pleadings in the writ petition and the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent, I am of the view that respondents 1 to 3 cannot prevent the petitioner from either parking his taxi in the taxi stand in question or plying in and around Kovalam area. The party respondents have no legal or statutory right to insist that the petitioner shall not be permitted to park his vehicle at the taxi stand in question or ply in and around Kovalam. Such a stand by the party respondents is clearly a violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India . Therefore this writ petition will stand disposed of directing that 4^th respondent to ensure that the petitioner is not prevented from plying his taxi in the Kovalam area by respondents 1 to 3 or their men. It is further directed that if the petitioner wishes to park his taxi in the taxi stand in question, the same shall also not prevented by respondents 1 to 3. If there is any queue system in place in the taxi stand, the petitioner shall also comply with the same. It is made clear that this judgment will require the police authorities to interfere only on a written complaint being submitted by the petitioner.

Writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-