SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 30453

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Murali Purushothaman, J
N.Prakash – Appellant
Versus
C.S.Shibu – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 17135 OF 2026



Important Points

State authorities have a statutory duty to consider and dispose of public grievances regarding vehicular safety and compliance with traffic regulations within a reasonable timeframe.

Subject

Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus

Headnote

The petitioner moved this court seeking directions to statutory authorities to take action against a vehicle owner for allegedly mounting a flex banner onto a passenger vehicle in violation of safety norms and permissible dimensions. The petitioner submitted that a formal representation had been made to the authorities which remained unaddressed. The issue before the court was the inaction of the transport authorities regarding the safety concerns raised by the petitioner. The court observed that the grievance required administrative consideration and directed the competent authority to adjudicate the representation after providing an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. The writ petition is disposed of.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N.Prakash (Party-in-Person)
For the Respondents: P.S.Appu

Table of Content
1. mandamus as a remedy for administrative inaction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

JUDGMENT

The case of the petitioner is as follows:-

On 29.03.2026 at 8.30 pm at Ayini Road, the petitioner noticed a passenger auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. KL-39-T-6197 belonging to the 1st respondent carrying a large flex/banner mounted on its top. The flex extended beyond the permissible dimensions of the vehicle, posing serious safety risk to other road users. Though Ext.P2 representation was submitted to respondents 2 to 4 on 30.03.2026, no action is taken so far. Hence this writ petition.

2. Heard the petitioner, who appeared in person and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 2 to 5. In the nature of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition notice to the 1st respondent is dispensed with.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering submissions made across the Bar, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 representation, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and the 1st respondent.

The writ petition is disposed of.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top