High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
DRIVERS UNION K.T.U.C. (M) v. THE SECRETARY, UZHAVOOR GRAMA - WP(C) No. 9336 of 2004(J)  RD-KL 4753 (6 March 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 9336 of 2004(J)
1. DRIVERS UNION K.T.U.C. (M)
1. THE SECRETARY, UZHAVOOR GRAMA
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. JOHN JOSEPH, PERUMBEL HOUSE,
4. JOSE. V.A., VAZHAMALAYIL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.SABU
For Respondent :SRI.PKM.HASSAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
O R D E R
A.K. BASHEER, J.W.P.(C). NO. 9336 OF 2004
J U D G M E N T
An organisation called Drivers Union K.T.U.C.(M) Uzhavoor, has filed this writ petition through its President Sri. Simon Parappanattu, claiming that the said organisation has got "more than 50 taxi operators of Uzhavoor town" as its members. The primary prayer in the writ petition is extracted hereunder:
"Issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction directing the 2nd respondent not to prohibit the parking of taxi vehicles at the place allotted by Ext.P2"
2. A perusal of Ext.P2 shows that it is only a recommendation/guideline for regulation of traffic in Uzhavoor town prepared by one Professor Joseph George Kannat in August 2003. In Ext.P2, the Professor has given certain suggestions as to how the traffic in Uzhavoor town can be regulated in order to achieve development of the town. Apparently, the suggestions made by the Professor are based on his personal knowledge. In Ext.P2, the Professor has invited the recipient thereof to attend the public meeting, which was scheduled to be held on September 3, 2003 at the conference hall of Uzhavoor Co-operative Bank under the chairmanship of Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala.
3. I have referred to Ext.P2 only to indicate that it is neither an official document nor a circular/order issued by any competent statutory WPC NO.9336/04 Page numbers authority. Nothing has been brought to my notice to show that the said document has been approved or accepted by any statutory authority for implementation. It is the said document that is sought to be enforced and implemented at the intervention of this Court by issuance of a writ of mandamus to respondent No.2, the Sub Inspector of the Local Police Station. Having perused the averments and the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, I have no hesitation to hold that this is clearly an abuse of process.
4. There is yet another reason which persuades me to take the above view. Some of the traders in Uzhavoor town had earlier approached this Court with a grievance that taxis and other public vehicles were being parked in front of their business establishments causing inconvenience to them. By judgment dated February 11, 2004 in W.P.C. No. 28346/03 this Court had directed the 2nd respondent to make an "endeavor to regulate the parking of vehicles so that minimum obstruction is caused to the petitioners' shop rooms till alternate parking arrangements are made." Ext.P1 is the copy of the said judgment in which the petitioner was of course not a party.
5. It is seen that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 representation before the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat requesting him to take necessary steps to ensure that the 2nd respondent, does not take any action against the taxi drivers in the light of Ext.P1 judgment. It is seen WPC NO.9336/04 Page numbers mentioned in Ext.P5 that the Police had been taking action against the erring taxi drivers in obedience to the directions issued in Ext.P1 judgment. It is the said action of the 2nd respondent that was sought to be prevented by the petitioner in Ext.P5 representation through the intervention of the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. It is evident from Ext.P5 that the petitioner had been trying to prevent the implementation of the directions contained in Ext.P1 judgment.
6. Respondents No. 4 and 5 who are two of the traders in Uzhavoor town have in their counter affidavit specifically contended that the so called Drivers' union in the name of which this writ petition has been filed is not a registered one. It is also contented by these respondents that such a union does not exist at all and that there is only one registered drivers' union at Uzhavoor, which is known as Uzhavoor Drivers' Association. It is further contended that the petitioner, who claims to be the President of Drivers' Union K.T.U.C.(M), is not a taxi driver at all and that he is only a local leader of a political party. Though the petitioner in his reply affidavit has made a vague attempt to deny the allegation that his union is not a registered one, no document has been produced to show that his organisation has been registered.
7. Learned Government Pleader has invited my attention to the written instructions received in the case from the Sub Inspector of Police, Kuravilangad. It has been informed by the 2nd respondent that pursuant to WPC NO.9336/04 Page numbers Ext.P1 judgment, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala, the authorities of Uzhavoor Grama Panchayat and others had earmarked and allotted separate slots for parking of public vehicles in Uzhavoor town. Pursuant to the above, the Police had taken steps to implement the decisions taken by the authorities mentioned above. It has been further informed by the 2nd respondent that at present there is no problem in the town as far as the parking of public vehicle is concerned. No law and order situation or traffic congestion had been reported after implementation of the decision taken by the authorities concerned. The above submissions made by the learned Government Pleader in the light of the written instructions from the 2nd respondent are recorded. . In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that this is a fit case where the petitioner has to be mulcted with cost payable to respondents 3 and 4 which is quantified at Rs.5,000/-. The cost shall be paid by Sri. Simon Parappanattu, President of the petitioners' union, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which it will be open to the respondents 3 and 4 to execute the same in accordance with law. The writ petition is dismissed with cost as indicated above.
1.3.07 A.K. BASHEER, JUDGEThis writ petition is posted as "to be spoken to" at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. WPC NO.9336/04 Page numbers
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that there was no attempt on the part of the petitioner to circumvent the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment. What was sought for, was only for some appropriate action to ensure that the directions contained in Ext.P1 judgment were implemented. But a perusal of the prayer in the writ petition undoubtedly indicates that the respondents wanted to get the suggestions or opinions indicated in Ext.P2 to be enforced. As mentioned earlier, Ext.P2 document was prepared by an individual who had no statutory sanction authority to do so. No document has been produced before this Court to show that Ext.P2 was liable to be enforced by issuance of a writ from this Court. More importantly, it is evident from Ext.P5 that the attempt of the petitioner was to implement all the directions contained in Ext.P1 judgment. In the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to modify the directions issued by me in the judgment dated March 1, 2007.
6.3.07 A.K. BASHEER, JUDGEvps WPC NO.9336/04 Page numbers
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGEOP NO.
21st DECEMBER, 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.