Kerala High Court
Managing Director vs State Of Kerala on 9 November, 2017
Author: V Shircy
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, V Shircy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1939
WP(C).No. 32693 of 2017 (J)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------
MANAGING DIRECTOR, KONDODY MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED
KONDODY BUILDING, KODIMATHA, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 039.
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MUNNAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI - 685 612.
3. THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE,
MUNNAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI - 685 612.
4. MUNNAR TUOURIST TAXI DRIVER'S ASSOCIATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNNAR,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
VINAYAKAM - 685 612.
5. REJI GEROGE,
PRESIDENT, MUNNAR TUOURIST TAXI DRIVER'S ASSOCIATION,
MUNNAR 685 612.
Addl. 6. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, IDUKKI
ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 9.11.2017 IN I.A. NO.
18010/2017
R1-3 & 6 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.P. THAJUDEEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.11.2017, THE COURT ON 13-12-2017, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 32693 of 2017 (J)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF KL-05/AP-
3415
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.981/2017
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 25.9.2017
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
R2 A COPY OF THE CHECK REPORT DATED 11.10.2017.
R2 B COPY OF THE ORDER FORM SEIZED BY THE ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLES
INSPECTOR.
R2 C COPY OF THE FIR SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, DEVIKULAM IN CRIME NO 981/2017.
R2 D COPY OF THE FIR SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT, DEVIKULAM IN CRIME NO 983/2017.
R2 E COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT
OFFICER, KSRTC BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER.
ks.
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
SHIRCY V.,JJ.
==============================
W.P.(C)No. 32693 OF 2017
==============================
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2017
JUDGMENT
Shircy V, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking police protection for removing illegal and unauthorized obstruction caused by the respondents 4 and 5, who claim to be the President and Secretary of the Tourist Taxi Drivers Association, Munnar, and the supporters under them, for the operation of his vehicle bearing No. KL-05 AP/3145 .
2. It is stated by the petitioner, who is the Managing Director of Kondody Motors Private Ltd. that he is conducting contract carriage operation for the convenience of tourists and troops in accordance with the schedule arranged by them. Recognized and approved travel WPC 32693/2017 2 agencies arrange the travel of tourists with the petitioner and he is holding valid permit for the same. He used to collect tourists from Munnar and drop them at places like Nedumbassery Airport, Ernakulam and Alappuzha and while so, the operation of his vehicle was illegally obstructed by the respondents 4 and 5 at Munnar and they threatened and prevented him from operating the vehicle and that on his complaint, a crime was registered against them. Still he finds it difficult to continue with his business and hence this petition.
3. The 2nd respondent, who is the Inspector of Police, Devikulam holding additional charge of the Inspector of Police, Munnar, filed counter affidavit contending that the petitioner, who is having contract carriage permit for his vehicle bearing registration No. KL-05/AP 3145, is actually conducting illegal parallel service and the employees of the bus used to canvass tourists from Munnar to various WPC 32693/2017 3 destinations. The Motor Vehicles Department booked the petitioner for conducting illegal parallel service, but that fact was not disclosed in the petition. One Easwaran of Munnar is canvassing tourists to the petitioner's bus for travelling to various destinations like Ernakulam and Alappuzha, adversely affecting the plying of vehicles by the tourist taxi drivers and therefore, they objected the same, which culminated in an altercation and clash between each other and the police registered cases against both sides as Crime Nos. 981/2017 and 983/2017. The Motor Vehicles Inspector on his inspection found that the petitioner is operating service by displaying destination boards and charging a fare of Rs.350/- from each passengers contrary to the averments in the petition. He used to pick up passengers included in the list furnished by 'Kyrose Connects Travel Agency' also. But Police protection is sought for, to continue with the illegal operation violating the contract carriage permit. WPC 32693/2017 4
4. A reply affidavit was also filed by the petitioner denying the allegation of parallel service from Munnar to various destinations .
5. The Regional Transport Officer, Idukki was impleaded as it was pointed out by the 2nd respondent that the petition is not maintainable as the Motor Vehicles Department is not in the party array.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
7. As per Ext.P2, the petitioner has obtained Contract Carriage Permit for his vehicle bearing KL-05 AP/3415 which is valid upto 08.01.2022.. Section 2(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act defines "contract carriage" as :
" "contract carriage" means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward and is engaged under a contract, whether expressed or implied, for the use of such vehicle as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein and entered into WPC 32693/2017 5 by a person with a holder of a permit in relation to such vehicle or any person authorised by him in this behalf on a fixed or an agreed rate or sum
- (a) on a time basis, whether or not with reference to any route or distance; or (b) from one point to another, and in either case, without stopping to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during the journey, and includes - (i) a maxicab; and (ii) a motorcab notwithstanding that separate fares are charged for its passengers."
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is conducting contract carriage operation attached to a recognized and approved travel agency and he used to pick up their tourists/guests from the Airport and drop them at their destination and take them back to the Airport and such other places, strictly in conformity with Ext.P2 permit. Ext.R2(c) is the copy Crime No. 0981/2017 of Munnar Police Station registered against certain taxi drivers of Munnar for manhandling one Murugan and Ext.R2(d) is WPC 32693/2017 6 the copy of another FIR of Munnar Police Station registered as 0983/2017 against the employees of the petitioner's vehicle for having assaulted one Hussain when he intervened in the rift between the tourist taxi drivers of Munnar and the crew of the petitioner's vehicle. The occurrence that led to launching of prosecution is the illegal involvement of the above referred Murugan, as an agent at the instance of the petitioner to canvass travellers to the bus owned by him. It is also revealed from the records that the vehicle of the petitioner was inspected by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector upon the complaint received from the 4th respondent, the Association of Munnar Tourist Taxi Drivers that the vehicle is operating as a parallel service displaying destination boards of Thekkady, Alappuzha and Kumarakom and that he is collecting an amount of Rs.350/- as fare from each passenger and preparing a passengers list of the vehicle at the time of inspection. Ext.R2(a) check WPC 32693/2017 7 report prepared by the Motor Vehicle Department on 11.10.2017 at the time of inspection of the bus would prima facie reveal that the vehicle owned by the petitioner was displaying the name board of certain places namely Alappuzha, Thekkady, Kumarakom etc. and collecting fare at the rate of Rs.350/- from the passengers of the bus and also taking guests /tourists whose names are mentioned in Ext.R2(b). Ext.R2(b) is the order form issued by Kondody Hotels and Resorts India Pvt. Ltd., Kumily, with the names of their guests. Ext.R2(a) check report prepared by the official of the Motor Vehicles Department indicates that a parallel service was conducted by the petitioner at Munnar as the passengers found in the vehicle were not only the passengers included in Ext.R2(b) list, but also some other passengers from whom fare was collected by the employees and so the Officer who conducted the inspection recommended cancellation of permit granted to the WPC 32693/2017 8 petitioner. If he was taking only tourists arranged by the Travel Agencies by name 'Kyrose Connects' and dropping them at the Airport, Ernakulam or Alappuzha as claimed by him, then there was absolutely no necessity to display boards exhibiting the name of places as detected by the officials of the Motor Vehicles department and further recommending cancellation of permit. Display of name boards of destination, Collection of charges directly from passengers, Canvassing passengers by agents without licence etc. are clear indication of violation of permit granted to the petitioner under Rule 144 (b) of the Motor Vehicle Rules. Separate permits are required to ply vehicles as stage carriage or contract carriage as per Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules. Ext.P2 permit does not entitle the holder to use the vehicle as stage carriage or as as a public carrier. Moreover, above referred FIRs registered by the Munnar Police would show that passengers were canvassed through WPC 32693/2017 9 agents without a valid licence obtained as per Rule 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act and it resulted in altercation between the two groups and registration of cases against the respective groups. An agent or Canvasser could function only after obtaining valid licence from the authority subject to the conditions prescribed by the Government.
9. As per Ext.P2 permit, the vehicle was having contract carriage permit only, but prima facie, it appears that it was also operated as stage carriage violating the permit conditions and, therefore, the Motor Vehicles Department had registered a case against the petitioner. The petitioner has sought for a direction to afford necessary police protection for removing unauthorized obstruction by respondents 4 and 5 and their supporters. But, as it is revealed that the petitioner himself has violated the permit conditions, we find that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands, which dis-entitle him for the WPC 32693/2017 10 reliefs sought for .
10. In short, we find no compelling necessity or justification to interfere with but, it is needless to say that if there is any threat to the law and order situation, it is the duty of the Police to intervene and avert the same.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE Sd/-
SHIRCY V. JUDGE ks.
True copy P.S To Judge