Kerala High Court
Uber India Systems Private Limited vs Director General Of Police on 6 July, 2021
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) Nos.25912 and 26397 of 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 25912 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:
RUBEL THEJU
AGED 26 YEARS
HOUSE NO.14/1829, ARACKAL HOUSE(KURUPATH),
CHULLICKAL, THOPPUMPADUY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-
682005
BY ADVS.
JAISY ELZA JOE
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND STATE POLICE
CHIEF
KERALA, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695010
2 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER
NEAR POLICE CLUB, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN,
KERALA-682011
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
HARBOUR POLICE STATION, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI,
KERALA 682005
4 SELF EMPLOYED DRIVERS UNION (SEDU)(AITUC)
K.B.HANEEF, CANON-SHED ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682011,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANAN DAS
WP(C) Nos.25912 and 26397 of 2019
2
5 UBER INDIA SYSTEM PRIVATE LIMITED,
CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE
COMPLEX, MAVELI ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682021
SRI. N.B. SUNIL NATH, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).26397/2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.25912 and 26397 of 2019
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 26397 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:
UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED
CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, REGIONAL OFFICE
COMPLEX, MAVELI ROAD, KADAVANTHARA , KOCHI 682
021
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, PRADEEP
PURANAM.
BY ADVS.
SANTHOSH MATHEW
ARUN THOMAS
JENNIS STEPHEN
VIJAY V. PAUL
VEENA RAVEENDRAN
ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
DIVYA SARA GEORGE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
KERALA, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
695 010
2 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,
NEAR POLICE CLUB, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN,
KERALA 682 011
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KADAVANTHARA POLICE STATION, MARKET ROAD NEAR
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA ELAMKULAM, KADAVANTHRA,
KOCHI, KERALA 682 020
WP(C) Nos.25912 and 26397 of 2019
4
4 SELF EMPLOYED DRIVERS UNION (SEDU) (AITUC)
K.B HANEEF, CANON-SHED ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682 011
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY KANNAN G
(ALIAS DAS)
5 KANAN G,
S/O. GANESAN V, H.NO-37/1273A(65/490) PLOT NO 2,
JUDGES AVENUE, INDIRA NAGAR, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM
682 017
SRI. N.B. SUNIL NATH, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.07.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).25912/2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos.25912 and 26397 of 2019
5
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
===================
WP(C) Nos.25912 and 26397 of 2019
===================
Dated this the 6th day of July 2021
JUDGMENT
These writ petitions are filed to get police protection for plying uber taxies.
2. When this writ petition came up for consideration earlier, after hearing both sides in detail, an order was passed by this Court on 04.10.2019, which is extracted hereunder;
" The petitioners in these writ petitions seek virtually the same relief. The contesting respondent in the cases is also one and the same. Among the matters, W.P.(C) No.26397 of 2019 has come up for admission and W.P.(C) No.25912 of 2019 has come up after notice. By a separate order passed today, I have admitted W.P.(C) No.26397 of 2019 and issued notice to the contesting respondent in that case also. As notice to the contesting respondent in W.P.(C) No.25912 of 2019 was served, the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader were heard on the plea of the petitioners for interim relief.
WP(C) Nos.25912 and 26397 of 2019 6
2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26397 of 2019 is the licencee of the mobile application 'Uber' which facilitates persons intending to avail transport services to interact with transport service providers through the application.The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25912 of 2019 is a transport service provider/driver partner of Uber. The gist of the case of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that a group of persons at the behest of the fourth respondent trade union in the writ petitions, along with some of the former service providers of Uber who were restrained from using the Application due to safety or quality reasons, are instigating others to join with them in a protest against use of Uber Application; that the fourth respondent and their associates are posing threats to the commuters and the service providers to compel them to refrain from using the application; that they are resorting to acts of violence against those who do not accede to their demand; that several cases involving injuries to persons and destruction of vehicles have already been registered by the police against the associates of the fourth respondent union, and that despite repeated requests, the police who are bound to extend aid to commuters and service providers and prevent the fourth respondent and their associates from resorting to acts of violence, are neither extending the police aid expected from them or taking appropriate measures to prevent the fourth respondent and others from resorting to violence. The petitioners, therefore, seek effective and meaningful police protection for carrying out their business/avocation.
3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that a few instances of obstruction were reported and they were found to be not serious. It was, however, pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that it is not practically possible to render police aid to all Uber WP(C) Nos.25912 and 26397 of 2019 7 service providers who are stated to be approximately 4000 in number. It was also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the police would certainly take action, if any untoward incident is reported to them.
4. Placing reliance on the threat posed on the commuters in the posters affixed by the fourth respondent at various places, the copies of which are part of the records, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on account of the threat and incidents already reported, the commuters and the service providers are now scared to use the application. The learned counsel submitted that what is expected from the police in a case of this nature is to take appropriate measures to prevent occurrence of untoward incidents. The learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of the court the directions issued by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) Nos.222 and 244 of 2019 and the decision of the Apex Court in Kodungallur Film Society and Another v. Union of India and Others [2018(5) KHC 297], in support of the relief claimed in the writ petitions.
5. The posters claimed to have been affixed by the fourth respondent and their associates at various places, the copies of which are made available, would certainly involve a threat not only to the service providers, but also to the commuters availing service through the application. The copies of the first information reports produced in the writ petitions establish prima facie that the apprehension of untoward incidents entertained by the petitioners is not unfounded. It is seen that the service providers using the application have been attacked and their vehicles were damaged in all those cases. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, what is expected from the police in a case of this nature, is to take effective and WP(C) Nos.25912 and 26397 of 2019 8 sincere efforts to see that no person using the application is obstructed or injured or the property of such person is damaged. It is trite that acts of violence under the guise of protests, affecting the rights of citizens to move freely or to carry on their avocation and affecting their right to life are liable to be treated not only as mere criminal acts against the individuals, but also as serious offences against the society.
6. In the circumstances, having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in Kodungallur Film Society as also the interim order passed by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) Nos.222 and 244 of 2019, I deem it appropriate to pass an interim order directing respondents 2 and 3 to evolve appropriate and suitable measures to prevent the members and associates of the fourth respondent trade union from causing obstructions to the commuters and service providers of Uber Application, or causing any injury to them or damaging their vehicles and assets, including extending sufficient and meaningful police aid to them, so as to enable them to use the mobile application for availing and extending transport services. Ordered accordingly. It is also directed that respondents 2 and 3 shall invoke the provisions of the Kerala Prevention of Damage to Private Property and Payment of Compensation Ordinance, 2019, in cases involving damage to property in the guise of protest against the use of Uber application against the perpetrators and also against persons who have called for the protest."
3. Today, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners and WP(C) Nos.25912 and 26397 of 2019 9 the learned Government Pleader submitted that, there is no law and order issue at present and if there is any law and order issue, the police will do the needful.
4. In the light of the above submissions, I think, this writ petition can be disposed retaining the interim order and with following further directions.
1) If there is any law and order issue faced by the petitioners, the petitioners are free to approach the Station House Officer concerned with a representation.
2) If such a representation is received from the petitioners, the Station House Officer concerned will do the needful, in the light of the interim order passed by this Court.
(Sd/-) P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE LU WP(C) Nos.25912 and 26397 of 2019 10 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26397/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURE EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOGRAPHS OF BANNERS PUT TO SEEKING TO BAN THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF MALAYALAM TRANSCRIPT OF THE RECORDINGS EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED IN WP(C) 10172 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF FIR NO. 0981 OF 2019 OF THE NEDUMBASSERY AIRPORT POLICE STATION EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF FIR NO 1377 OF 2019 OF THE PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 1373 OF 2019 OF THE PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION PREFERRED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER PREFERRED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION PREFERRED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
WP(C) Nos.25912 and 26397 of 2019 11 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25912/2019 PETITIONER ANNEXURE EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENCE OF THE PETITIONER BEARING NO.32/697/2011 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY THE RC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-43 K2681 EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOGRAPHS AND BANNERS PUT UP BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ORGANISATION AND ITS MEMBERS EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE VIDE RECORDING AND AUDIO TRANSCRIPTS IN A CD STICK EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.0981/2019 OF THE NEDUMBASSERY AIRPORT POLICE STATION EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1377/20-19 OF THE PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1373/2019 OF THE PALAIRVATTOM POLICE STATION EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION PREFERRED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION PREFERRED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION PREFERRED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED IN WP(C)10172/2016 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. DT.17/3/2016 WP(C) Nos.25912 and 26397 of 2019 12 EXHIBIT P12 MALAYALAM TRANSCRIPTION OF EXHIBIT P4 VIDEO RECORDINGS AND AUDIO TRANSCRIPTS IN A USB STICK.
// True Copy //
PA to Judge