Kerala High Court
Viswanathan S vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2016
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/30TH PHALGUNA, 1938
WP(C).No. 33293 of 2016 (J)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
VISWANATHAN S.,
AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. SUBRAMANI,
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.X/422, DEVIKULAM,
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 613.
BY ADV. SRI.N.M.VARGHESE
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENTS,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE,
KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI-685 603.
3. THE SUB COLLECTOR,
DEVIKULAM, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI-685 613.
4. THE IDUKKI DISTRICT PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
CHERUTHONI, IDUKKI.-685 620.
5. THE SECRETARY,
IDUKKI DISTRICT PANCHAYATH,
DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
CHERUTHONI, IDUKKI-685 612.
6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 612.
msv/
-2-
-2-
WP(C).No. 33293 of 2016 (J)
----------------------------
7. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MUNNAR POLICE STATION, MUNNAR,
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 612.
8. MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MUNNAR PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 612.
9. THE SECRETARY,
TOURISTS TAXI DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, MUNNAR,
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 612.
R1-R3 & R6 & R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL
R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN V.ALAPATT, SC
R8 BY SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SC
SRI.ARUN THOMAS, SC
R9 BY ADV. SRI.BABU PAUL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 33293 of 2016 (J)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
SECRETARY, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH DATED 30.9.2016.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.1007/2016 DATED 3.10.2016.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.B2-5758/16 DATED 29.9.2016.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 3.10.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT SUB COLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DTD.20.10.2016 IN
WPC.NO.32825/2016 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 33293 of 2016 (J)
------------------------------------------
Dated: 21st March, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved with the delay in proceeding with Exts.P1 and P2. The petitioner had approached this Court seeking expeditious consideration of the complaint filed by the 4th respondent (Ext.P1) before the 6th respondent. The petitioner in fact has no locus standi to seek the prayers sought herein. The petitioner sources his grievance to the encroachment of anti-social elements into the rooms belonging to the local authority, wherein the taxis are permitted to be parked. The encroachment is also alleged to be by the 9th respondent taxi drivers Union; styled as a gang in the memorandum. Obviously it is the inter union rivalry that has given rise to the above writ petition.
W.P.(C) No. 33293/2016 -2-
2. Be that as it may, the allegation was that the 9th respondent was in illegal occupation of two rooms, which belong to the 4th respondent. It was also contended that the 6th respondent is not acting on the complaint made by the 4th respondent. Immediately, it is to be reiterated that the petitioner claims to be a taxi driver and does not, in fact, proffer any explanation as to his locus standi to file the writ petition for expeditious consideration of a complaint by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent, admittedly, is the owner of the rooms which are said to have been illegally occupied by the 9th respondent.
3. The 9th respondent is also said to have approached this Court with a claim of police harassment, alleging that the Circle Inspector of Police locked the rooms and evicted the 9th respondent by force. The said writ petition was considered by a W.P.(C) No. 33293/2016 -3- Division Bench of this Court, as revealed from Ext.P5. Therein, the State had appeared and contended that only on a complaint filed by the 4th respondent the Circle Inspector had taken the said action. A complaint was also stated to have been filed before the Police Complaints Authority, which too was pending. A crime was registered as Crime No.1007/2016 against unidentified persons and the key was produced before the Judicial Magistrate. This Court, hence, declined to interfere with the proceedings and directed consideration by the Judicial Magistrate as to who should be given possession of the keys.
4. The 9th respondent, 4th respondent and the petitioner approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devikulam, who is said to have passed Order dated 09.12.2016 in the C.M.Ps filed by the District Panchayat and also the 9th respondent W.P.(C) No. 33293/2016 -4- Association. The District Panchayat's application was rejected. The 9th respondent Union was directed to execute a bond for Rs.1 lakhs with two solvent sureties and was granted permission to take over the keys. There was also a direction to carry out inventory, for which purpose an Advocate was appointed as the Officer of the Court.
5. It is the submission of the petitioner that there is also an O.P.(Crl) No.81/2017, with respect to the very same case, pending before this Court. The learned Counsel for the 9th respondent submits that O.P.(Crl) No. 81/2017 was necessitated only for reason of the Advocate appointed by the Court being physically prevented from carrying out the directions in the Order dated 09.12.2016. The Advocate appointed by the Court was before the Magistrate with an application seeking police protection. There was no Magistrate W.P.(C) No. 33293/2016 -5- sitting in that Court and hence the 9th respondent filed a Crl.M.C. for expeditious consideration of the application.
6. Any way, as of now, it is the contention of the 4th respondent, who appears through Counsel, that there is an agreement entered into between the 4th respondent and the 9th respondent by which the 9th respondent is in valid possession of one room till 31.03.2017. There is, hence, no dispute pending between the 4th respondent and the 9th respondent. The petitioner has approached this Court mainly on the basis of the dispute pending between the 4th respondent and the 9th respondent. The same having been settled, there is no further cause of concern. The petitioner is also found to be a person without any locus standi as far as the two rooms are concerned.
W.P.(C) No. 33293/2016 -6-
The writ petition would stand dismissed. No Costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 22/3/17