BY AD v. T.MADHU

SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMARAN THAMPI, ADVOCATE, NIKUNJAM, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH, CHOOLATHERUVU P O, ALAPPUZHA-690506. *ADDL.R9 THE CHAIRMAN, TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE, HARIPAD MUNICIPALITY, CONSTITUTED UNDER SECTION 72 OF THE KERALA POLICE ACT 2011, OFFICE OF THE TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE, HARIPAD MUNICIPALITY, HARIPAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 514. *[ADDL.R9 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24/06/2022 IN I.A:2/22 IN WP(C) 9953/2022] BY ADVS. ARUNKUAMR M.R K.SIMOD SIVAN SRI.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 9953 OF 2022 -3- JUDGMENT The petitioners, who are stated to be businessmen running their businesses at Haripad, impugn Ext.P6 Award of the Karthikappally Taluk Legal Services Committee, Haripad (‘Committee’, for short) - under the aegis of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority - to the extent to item No.5 therein.

2. The petitioners assert that the ‘Committee’ obtained no jurisdiction to have issued Ext.P6 to the extent impugned because, the question as to where an ‘auto-rickshaw stand should be situated, is not within their competence, but to be decided by the statutory Traffic Regulatory Committee. They, therefore, pray that Ext.P6, to the extent WP(C) NO. 9953 OF 2022 -4- impugned, be set aside.

3. Sri.M.R.Arun Kumar – learned Standing Counsel for respondents 6 and 9, conceded that, normally, the establishment of an ‘auto-rickshaw stand’ or parking areas, is to be decided by the Traffic Regulatory Committee, which is headed by the Chairperson of the Municipality. He explained that Ext.P6 is the outcome of a complaint preferred by respondent No.8; and that, in the Lok Adalat in which it was entered into, certain broad decisions were taken, without reference to the jurisdictional aspects. He submitted that, therefore, his client will abide by any direction to be issued by this Court.

4. Sri.K.Simod Sivan – learned counsel appearing for the 8th respondent, submitted that Ext.P6 contains 24 directions, of which, WP(C) NO. 9953 OF 2022 -5- only the 5th is impugned by the petitioners. He submitted that, however, since this writ petition is pending, none of the other directions have been complied with. As regards the 5th direction, he admitted that, if this Court is so inclined, the matter can be relegated to the Traffic Regulatory Committee, to be decided as per law; but prayed that it be directed to be done without any avoidable delay.

5. When I consider and evaluate the afore rival submissions, it is indubitable that, normally, the establishment of an ‘auto-rickshaw stand’ or vehicle parking areas can be decided only by the competent statutory Authority, namely the Traffic Regulatory Authority, under Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. WP(C) NO. 9953 OF 2022 -6-

6. In the case at hand, what was presented before the ‘Committee’ was a complaint by the 8th respondent, based on which, a discussion was conducted among all the stakeholders and certain resultant decisions recorded, as evident from Ext.P6.

7. However, as rightly argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality, the Award does not take into account the jurisdictional aspect of the ‘Committee’, but it is based on the consent of all the stakeholders. However, it must also be borne in mind that the petitioners were not heard by the said Committee, while the Award was issued; and this is without contest.

8. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the impugned direction in Ext.P6 cannot WP(C) NO. 9953 OF 2022 -7- be allowed to operate and that a decision on the ‘auto-rickshaw stand’ and parking area, will have to be finally taken by the Traffic Regulatory Committee. In the afore circumstances, (a) I order this writ petition and set aside direction No.5 in Ext.P6; however, clarifying that this Court has not touched upon any other direction in the said order. (b) The competent Traffic Regulatory Committee will immediately consider the issues involved in direction No.5 in Ext.P6 and take a final decision thereon, after hearing all sides, as also any other interested person; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of WP(C) NO. 9953 OF 2022 -8- receipt of a copy of this judgment. (c) The Convener of the Traffic Regulatory Committee shall ensure that its meetings are held appropriately to facilitate actions within the afore time frame. (d) Until such time as the afore is done and the resultant order communicated to the petitioners, status quo with respect to the ‘auto-rickshaw stand’ and parking area as available today, will be maintained. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE WP(C) NO. 9953 OF 2022 -9- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9953/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE D AND O LICENCE DATED 1/6/2021 ISSUED BY THE HARIPAD MUNICIPALITY TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. THE TRUE COPY OF THE D AND O LICENCE DATED 17/6/2021 ISSUED BY THE HARIPAD MUNICIPALITY TO THE SECOND PETITIONER. THE TRUE COPY OF THE D & O LICENCE DATED 06/5/2021 ISSUED BY THE HARIPAD MUNICIPALITY TO THE THIRD PETITIONER. THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 27/5/2008 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN P L P NO.28/2008. THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 11.10.2021 FILED BY THE EIGHTH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 5/3/2022 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R8 (1) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20-04-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R8(2) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE ENCROACHMENT COMMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS EXHIBT R8(3) THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT,2005 DATED 28-04-2022 WP(C) NO. 9953 OF 2022 -10- EXHIBIT R8 (4) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31- 05-2022 EXHIBIT R8 (5) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27/04/2022 EXHIBIT R8(6) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18- 05-2022 EXHIBIT R8 (7) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20/04/2022 AND ITS POSTAL RECEIPTS EXHIBIT R8 (8) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION DATED 16/12/2021 EXHIBIT R8 (9) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION DATED 07/03/2022 EXHIBIT R8 (10) THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES REPORT OF THE TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE DATED 31-02-2021 EXHIBIT R8 (11) THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN PLP.NO.896 /2021 EXHIBIT R6(A) COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 8.07.2016 OF THE TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE OF THE HARIPPAD MUNICIPALITY EXHIBIT R6(B) COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 11.02.2021 OF THE TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE OF THE TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE OF THE HARIPPAD MUNICIPALITY EXHIBIT R6(C) COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 8.7.2021 OF THE TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE OF THE HARIPPAD MUNICIPALITY EXHIBIT R6(D) COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 9TH WP(C) NO. 9953 OF 2022 -11- EXHIBIT R6(E) EXHIBIT R6(F) EXHIBIT R6(G) EXHIBIT R6(H) EXHIBIT R6(I) EXHIBIT R6(J) RESPONDENT CHAIRMAN OF THE HARIPPAD MUNICIPALITY DATED 19.11.2021 COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 9TH RESPONDENT TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE OF THE HARIPPAD MUNICIPALITY DATED 21.12.2021 COPY OF THE REPORT FURNISHED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT HARIPPAD MUNICIPALITY BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE HEADED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HARIPPAD MUNICIPALITY DATED 31-12-2021 COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HARIPPAD MUNICIPALITY TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 3.1.2022 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.1.2022 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN, TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT COPY OF THE SUGGESTIONS FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN P.L.P. NO. 896 OF 2021 BEFORE THE ADALATH OF THE KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE DATED 3.2.2022 EXHIBIT R6(K) COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ADALATH IN P.L.P. NO. 896 OF 2021 EXHIBIT R6(L) COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 21.3.2022 BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT CHAIRMAN OF THE HARIPPAD MUNICIPALITY