Kerala High Court
Mohammed Kunhikoya vs The State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2021
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 36561 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
MOHAMMED KUNHIKOYA, AGED 62 YEARS
S/O ALAVI, AKKODE P.O, VAZHAKKAD (VIA), MALAPPURAM DIST. -673 640
BY ADVS.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TOURISM DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 301
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673 020.
3 CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,CORPORATION OFFICE,
CALICUT BEACH-673032.
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,
KOZHIKODE CITY, PIN-673001.
5 DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MANACHIRA,
KOZHIKODE, PIN-673001.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SC, KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION
SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH
SMT.MEENA.A.
SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2021, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)NO.36561 OF 2018
:: 2 ::
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2021 S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.
Prayer in this Public Interest Litigation is to remove the ban of vehicular traffic movement from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. imposed by the Corporation of Kozhikode (Respondent No.3) on the Mittayi Theruvu Road in the Kozhikode Town.
2. According to the petitioner, the Theru is access to the railway station for persons traversing north to south. The alternative road to the railway station is clogged by heavy traffic. In May 2017 renovation of the street was undertaken by Corporation.
3. Reliefs sought for in this writ petition are as follows:
i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to remove the obstruction and to maintain the public street 'Mittayi Theruvu' as before;
ii) issue a writ of prohibition or other suitable writ or order, restraining the respondents from closing the said public street for vehicular traffic;
4. On the averments made in the writ petition, Sri. B. Krishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the road vests on the Corporation is only for the limited purposes of maintenance and therefore, the Corporation do not have a legal authority to enforce a ban on movement of W.P.(C)NO.36561 OF 2018 :: 3 ::
vehicular traffic on Mittayi Theruvu road.
5. In support of his contention, learned counsel has referred to Sections 207 and 347 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994.
6. It is further contended that the right of the shop owners on either side guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India is violated by the ban of vehicular traffic movement on the Mittayi Theruvu road.
7. According to Mr.B.Krishnan learned counsel, Civic administration has no sanction from the Government to close down the street, exercising powers under Section 347 of the Act. It is also alleged that the civic administration has not given an opportunity of hearing to the affected persons before undoing the amenities due to the users-citizens.
8. On the above pleadings, Mr.B.Krishnan learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon various decisions, submitted that the civic administration cannot enforce closure of a public street, as explained in Shri. Mishrimal Jethemal Oswal Vs. The Municipal Council of Lonavala, P.K. Warier vs. State of Kerala (1989 (2) KLT 867), Godavari Bai Vs. Kannur Municipality (1984 KLT 1103) and National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Khos Mendir Singh Gahunia (AIR 2016 SC 4102).
9. Sri.N.Manoj Kumar, learned State Attorney submitted that the Corporation has the authority to regulate vehicular traffic in larger public W.P.(C)NO.36561 OF 2018 :: 4 ::
interest. A detailed statement has been filed on behalf of the District Collector, Kozhikode, the second respondent wherein, it is stated that the restriction imposed for vehicular traffic is not a complete ban, but a scheduled control between 10 AM to 10 PM.
10. He further submitted that during the remaining hours, vehicular traffic is permissible and loading/unloading activities of goods can be undertaken with light goods vehicle. Thus, according to the District Collector, Kozhikode, the second respondent all the stakeholders involved were taken into consideration, and access is not denied for anyone.
11. Relevant portions from the said statement reads as under:
"S.M.Street (Sweetmeat Street) known in malayalam as "'Mithai theruvur is a 450 meters long street/road within Calicut Municipal Corporation starting from Vaikom Muhammed Basheer Roadin front of Manachira Maidan on North and ending at Palayam Road in south. Two major roads namely NH-17 and Oyitti Road runs parallel to S.M street Road on either side spaced at 200 meters. Both the parallel roads, NH-17 and Oyitti road are on an average more than 10 meters wide with bus connectivity. S.M.Street is having access from the above said two parallel roads through three roads named, court road, Moideen Palli road and PM Taj road.
2. S.M Street historically and presently have pedestrian characteristic with large footfall with width of road reducing to almost 5 Metres. At some sections of street, the occasional private vehicles plying through the road lead to congestion and unhealthy environment for the pedestrians. Only few of the buildings have their own parking spaces available in the S.M Street. Decades old buildings built at a time where parking spaces were not mandatory or stringent leads to parking on already inconvenient road bustling with pedestrian activity. Alternate parking arrangements are available at MP Road, PM Taj road and Mananchira Road.
W.P.(C)NO.36561 OF 2018 :: 5 ::
3. The decision to restrict vehicular traffic through S.M Street was taken by the Traffic Regulatory Committee in its meeting held on 29.12.2017. In the meeting of the Traffic Regulatory Committee attended by The Corporation Mayor, The District Collector, Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, The Inspector of Police (Traffic), the following decisions were taken:
i) there will be no entry of vehicles during 10 AM to 10 PM through S.M. Street.
ii) From 10 PM to 10 AM only light vehicles will be allowed entry. There will be a total ban of entry of heavy vehicles
iii) The one-way arrangement through Court road, MP Road is given up.
4. Subsequently on 4.1.2018, again Traffic Regulatory Committee met and confirmed its decision took in the meeting dated 29.12.2017 not to allow vehicles through SM Street during 10 AM to 10 PM. In the meeting held on 04.01.2018, some other allied decisions for enhancing the facility due to traffic restriction were taken.
5. Based on Annexures R2(b) and (c) decisions, the District Collector and Chairman of District Disaster Management Authority issued an order confirming the traffic regulations affected with respect to SM Street.
6. The restriction has not affected the connectivity of the street nor its commercial importance. It is also submitted that the Kudumbasree Mission is operating buggies to ensure better mobility to differently abled, specially skilled, elders and kids. The six-seater buggies run by the Kudumbashree offers a non-polluting riding experience and hassle-free shopping for customers on SM Street.
7. The restriction imposed for vehicular traffic is not a complete ban, but a scheduled control between 10 AM to 10 PM. During the remaining hours, vehicular traffic is permissible and loading/unloading activities of goods can be undertaken with light goods vehicle. Thus, it can be seen that all the stakeholders involved are taken into consideration, and access is not denied for anyone.
8. The total length of S.M street is 450 Metres. General thumb rule for walkable distance in an urban design perspective is 400 Metres. S.M street is thus ideal for pedestrianization from the perspective of walkability. Pedestrian commercial streets are implemented successfully elsewhere in the world like Copenhagen Street. Copenhagen Street is 3 Kilometres long with commercial activity. There are other cities like W.P.(C)NO.36561 OF 2018 :: 6 ::
London, Venice, New York, Barcelona, etc. who have implemented pedestrianization successfully.
9. The safety of pedestrian shoppers is the prime concern for the authorities, they being the most vulnerable among the stakeholders of any street. Many successful examples of pedestrianised shopping streets/ market alleys, like those in Lucknow, Delhi, Bangalore etc., and tactical interventions like car-free day experiments across various parts of the world, has proved that pedestrianization provides better accessibility and mobility for pedestrians. In most of the above cases as well, initial surveys conducted showed that merchants and vendors always opposed the ideas of pedestrianization in the fear of it lowering their daily businesses. However, it was later found that the easy shopping experience increased the extent of purchasing and other commercial enterprise activity in the region. In this case, due to overcrowding in the narrow streets (from a mix of pedestrians, 2 wheelers and 4 wheelers) in the last few years, SM street which was an attractive public space had lost its charm and purpose due to heavy traffic congestion of vehicles and pedestrians, and illegal encroachment of hawkers and vendors. So, the objective of pedestrianization is to retain SM street's existence as a safe public space for the pedestrians/shoppers, thereby giving back to the people their right of way, a better shopping experience and boosing the Street's economic, environmental and social benefits. Pedestrianization of SM street has provided improved safety and security, reduced pollution levels, better environment and enhanced shopping experience, leading to better customer satisfaction. It can also be noted that many socio-cultural organizations in the city have taken up demonstrations in favour of pedestrianization.
10. S.M street is not just a commercial street but has more than 600 years of glorious history and heritage value. Even amongst the rapid development of commercial sector in Kozhikode, SM Street still retains many old structures, some of which are more than a decade old. The street accommodates bargain sellers to branded outlets, and is crowded throughout the day. In addition to the small shops and modern commercial buildings, the street also houses hotels, lodges, movie theatres, professional services, and even heritage religious premises like the Parsi Anjuman Baug, the only Parsi temple in Kerala. The Mittayi Theruvu is also a meeting place for intellectuals, writers and artists and a centre for cultural activities. The street is a symbol of the city's unique cultural identity. S.M street has frequent visitors on foot just to cherish the historical and architectural aspects of the street. A visit to the street is a sure component in the tourism itinerary of every tourist visiting W.P.(C)NO.36561 OF 2018 :: 7 ::
Kozhikode. There is a need to bring back the old charm of the Sweetmeat Street as a shopping street.
11. For that matter, S.M Street was proactively included in heritage zone in sectioned master plan for Kozhikode Urban area-2035. The construction activities in the streets are controlled not to lose the architectural heritage of the buildings and the street. Pedestrianization and traffic restriction is indeed important to preserve the street's character and quality of environment.
12. The petitioner compares the pedestrianization of SM Street to "encroachment by the Civic authorities" which is false. Infact, encroachments on the street were removed as part of the renovation and pedestrianisation of the street. It is also wrong that public access to Railway Station is denied due to the pedestrianization of SM Street. This is untrue. There are two other roads, with bus services as well as light vehicular access, for commuters from North to reach the Railway Station. Pedestrians can still access the railway station through SM Street.
13. The petitioner is equating the restriction for vehicular traffic on SM street to the "permanent closure of a public street" under Section 347 of Municipality Act 1994 is also incorrect. The regulations brought about in SM street is only a scheduled control of Vehicular Traffic between 10 AM to 10 PM. Also, pedestrians have access at all time to the street. Thus, there is no 'permanent closure of street' as stated by the petitioner.
14. The quoted case Godavari Bai v. Kannur Municipality was about the municipality undertaking constructions on the road margin, apparently obstructing the petitioners access to the street and hence is not applicable in this case. Another cited case, National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. V. Khos Mendir Sigh is about the apparent encroachment and permanent closure of a street which the residents of localities in the area had utilized it for over 60 years to access many places, by the National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. In the case of SM Street, there is no closure, whether temporary or permanent in nature, and hence the quoted cases are not applicable in this case.
15. Under Section 347 of Municipality Act 1994, the Municipality can turn or divert the traffic on a street. In the case of SM street the Municipality has exercised this power to divert the vehicular traffic between 10 AM to 10 PM, the hours in which there is heavy pedestrian flow in the street. The requirements for vehicular traffic for goods transport by the merchants and vendors is protected as light goods W.P.(C)NO.36561 OF 2018 :: 8 ::
vehicles are allowed between 10 PM and 10 AM. The traffic restriction in SM street has brought about better safety for pedestrians and better shopping experience for all shoppers, while improving the environmental quality, conserving the heritage character, creating a space for social interactions and enhancing tourism value."
12. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Corporation of Kozhikode, the third respondent, wherein, it is categorically stated that restriction which was imposed from 10 AM to 10 PM has been modified as 11 AM to 9 PM after holding a meeting of all stake holders.
13. It is contended that no difficulty is caused to the general public due to said restriction. There are various other roads leading towards railway station. It is submitted that complete prohibition as alleged by the petitioner is not imposed in the street. The present scenario only brings in a reasonable restriction. This is introduced solely after taking into account the safety of pedestrians and convenience of local traders.
14. Relevant portion of the counter affidavit reads as under:
"2. 'Mittayitheruvu' (Sweet meat Street) bears the cultural heritage of Kozhikode for the past many years and has evolved into a business hotspot of the city attracting numerous customers, traders and tourists. Deliberations to renovate the street while preserving its history and heritage were ongoing between the Government and Corporation since 1996. As a result, 'Mittayitheruvu renovation plan' was formed under the leadership of District Tourism Promotion Council (DTPC) along with the support of Corporation and Government and the street was renovated. As a part of the development initiative, fire hydrants were installed and hygience facilities were totally revamped by installing new toilets and renovating drainage outlets. Street lights were newly installed and provisions for public seating etc. were also made. The renovation and development were carried out spending a total amount of Rs.6.26 crores. W.P.(C)NO.36561 OF 2018 :: 9 ::
On 21.12.2017, the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Kerala dedicated the street to the people of Calicut. However, taking into account the convenience of numerous pedestrians who use the street and respecting public opinion, some reasonable restrictions for vehicle commutation through the street were necessitated. In fact, there were numerous demonstrations by various social organisations seeking a ban on vehicle usage through the renovated street.
3) It is submitted that 'Mittayitheruvu' is used as a shortcut to the railway station. Since the customers who come to the street are aware about the paucity of parking space, many of them refrain from bringing vehicles inside the street. It is also submitted that there is no total prohibition of traffic through the 450 meter long street. As per the decision dated 29.12.2017 of the traffic regulatory committee, the ban imposed on vehicles are only from 10 AM to 10 PM. Light vehicles can freely transgress through the street from 10 PM to 10 AM. Further, there is no prohibition on M.P. Road, Taj Road and Court road which are the roads leading to street. True copy of the decision dated 29.12.2017 of the Traffic Regulating Committee is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.R3(a).
4) It is submitted that on 08.10.2018, a meeting was held in the chamber of Hon'ble Mayor where various trade unions and traders from the street participated. In the said meeting, it was decided that in place of the existing restriction from 10 AM to 10 PM, the restriction will now be imposed from 11 AM to 9 PM. It was also decided that to bring stock for the local traders, light vehicles will be allowed till 3 PM. The meeting on 08.10.2018 also resolved to entrust 'Indian Institute of Management' to carry out a study regarding granting of permission for vehicles in the street. It was also decided to carry out further meetings after the receipt of the study report. True copy of the Minutes of the Meeting held in the Chamber of the Hon'ble Mayor is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit.R3(b).
5) Thus it is submitted that no prohibition as alleged by the petitioner is imposed in the street. The present scenario only brings in a reasonable restriction. This is introduced solely after taking into account the safety of pedestrians and convenience of local traders. The restriction which was imposed from 10 AM to 10 PM is now modified as 11 AM to 9 PM after holding a meeting of all stake holders. No difficulty is caused to the general public due to said restriction. There are various other roads leading towards railway station."
W.P.(C)NO.36561 OF 2018 :: 10 ::
15. Minutes of the Traffic Regulatory Committee meeting held on 29.12.2017 reads thus:
"At the meeting, Worship Mayor presided:
Those who were present:
1. Shri.Thottathil Raveendran, Worshipful Mayor.
2. Shri.U.V.Jose, I.A.S. District Collector
3. Shri.Prasad .C.T., Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department
4. Shri.Sreejith.T.R. Inspector of Police
5. Shri.Sanalkumar.P., Motor Vehicles Inspecor, R.T.O. office.
The following decisions have been arrived at with regard to Traffic Regulations to be implemented on 'Mittayi Theruvu' (Sweet Meat Street) based on the suggestions made by the Corporation Council approved by the Traffic Regulatory Committee:
1.Complete prohibition of Vehicular Traffic on the Mittayi Theruvu from 10.00 hours in the morning till 10.00 hours in the night.
2. Permitting movement of light vehicles during the period from 10.00 hours at night up to 10.00 hours in the morning.
3.Movement of Heavy Duty Vehicles should be completely banned.
4.It was decided to remove the one-way system of vehicular traffic on the court road and M.P.Road, which was enforced earlier.
Instead of the present practice of buses passing in front of the L.I.C. office taking a turn through Mananchira Maidan, the buses should pass through in front of the B.E.M.School and in front of the Income tax office, and with a view to regulate this, it was decided to entrust the responsibility to the police, to make a detailed study and report. The committee held a detailed discussion with regard to allowing parking of vehicles on one side of the Vaikom Mohammed Basheer Road in its entirety. It was further decided to fix the Parking Timings and install Boards and take necessary steps to inform the general public about this. The Corporation of Calicut should take steps for preparing the Boards to be installed."
W.P.(C)NO.36561 OF 2018 :: 11 ::
16. Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 deals with 'Traffic Regulatory Committees', which reads as under:
72. Traffic regulatory committees.- (1) In every Grama Panchayat, Municipality and Corporation Traffic Regulatory Committees shall be constituted as may be prescribed, for regulating matters in respect of traffic.
(2) The concerned head of the Local Government institution shall be the Chairman of the Traffic Regulatory Committee and the nominees of the District Magistrate, the District Police Chief, the Regional Transport Officer and the Executive Engineer of Public Works Department shall be the members of the said committee.
(3) The Traffic Regulatory Committee shall issue orders, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) and the Kerala Road Safety Act, 2007 (Act 8 of 2007) and the rules made thereunder, for preventing danger, obstruction and inconvenience caused to the general public in respect of traffic in the following matters. Such orders issued shall be complied with by the Government Departments concerned, the officers and the general public, namely:-
(a) regulate the manner and time of traffic of all kinds in public places;
(b) regulate the gateways, festoons, banners, hoardings, signs, representations, illuminated displays, construction activity, trade, welding, environmental pollution, nuisance by noise, blasting of rocks, mining, bursting of crackers, flying of kites and fireworks etc. seen in any property in the manner having the possibility of distracting attention of the public road users or causing danger to them;
(c) regulate the manner and mode of conveyance of timber, poles, ladders, iron girders, beams, iron bars, boilers, hay, soil and articles difficult in handling, etc. along the streets;
(d) regulate the carrying of any explosive substances or hazardous chemicals along public places which may cause danger to road users;
(e) close certain streets or instruct that no one shall enter in certain places under circumstances that there is reasonable apprehension of danger from buildings which are on the verge of collapse or due to other reasons;
W.P.(C)NO.36561 OF 2018 :: 12 ::
(f) regulate the manner and means of entry from streets and public places to private buildings and places situated on the road side;
(g) fix the manner in which the members of the general public may voluntarily assist in traffic management without causing any financial liability in that respect to the State or the Police Department.
(4) Subject to the approval of the Traffic Regulatory Committee, the District Police Chief may issue orders on the above matters and such orders shall be submitted before the concerned Traffic Regularity Committee within seven days.
(5) The orders submitted in such manner shall be considered by the Traffic Regulatory Committee and appropriate decision shall be taken thereon:
Provided that the orders issued by the District Police Chief shall remain in force until a decision is taken by the Traffic Regulatory Committee.
(6) A District Level Traffic Regulatory Committee shall be constituted, in the manner prescribed by the Government, for coordinating the activities of the Traffic Regulatory Committees in a District and to establish traffic regulations for the district as a whole in the above matters.
17. By the judgment in W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018 dated 9.9.2021, this court held that the Traffic Regulatory Committee is competent to decide the manner and time of traffic of all kinds in public places, relevant portion of the said judgment are reproduced:
"14. In W.P.(C)20218 of 2014, Pathanamthitta District Private Bus Operators Association v. Traffic Regulatory Committee reported in 2014 (4) KLT 123, the court held thus:
"6. In W.A.No.1756 of 1998, the decision to implement one way traffic in a particular sector made by the RTA was upheld. W.P.(C)NO.36561 OF 2018 :: 13 ::
However, that is not to say that the conflict with the powers exercised by the TRC under the Police Act and the powers exercised by the Regional Transport Authorities under the MV Act was considered or that issue answered in the aforesaid decision. Exhibit P5 also would not be applicable, since a mere reading of the said decision would show that the order issued therein was neither under the Police Act nor under the MV Act.
7. The issue, by virtue of the binding precedents in Abdul Khader and Ramakrishnan (supra), is no longer res integra. The perceivable difference in the extant enactments; is that the power conferred is on two separate authorities; the RTA under the MV Act and the TRC under the Police Act. The question in that context has not been dealt with in the afore-cited decisions.
8. It is to be noticed that Section 72 of the Police Act of 2011 specifically confers power on the TRC, by sub-clause (a) of sub- section (2), to regulate the manner and time of traffic of all kinds in public places. Section 68 refers to the constitution of the State and Regional Transport Authorities and the powers to be exercised by the said authorities; which are to be prescribed as per the Rules. The apparent conflict with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act is a contention which has to be specifically looked at in the context of Sections 113 and 115 of the MV Act and Rule 339 of the KMV Rules. Section 113 refers to the limitation with respect to use of vehicles; which limitations are prescribed on the aspect of weight and other conditions. Section 115 is a power to restrict the use of 'a vehicle' on a specified route or a specified area. This is not a power which is synonymous with that of the TRC. The RTA could, in specified cases, impose restrictions of 'one way traffic' in any sector invoking Section 115 read with Rule 339; but, that is not to say that the powers are exclusive on the authority under the Motor Vehicles Act. Again the power under the Police Act is wider than the power conferred under the MV Act.
9. In any event, it is to be noticed that the constitution of the TRC as indicated in sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the Police Act of 2011 ensures the representation of all departments concerned with the regulation of traffic, including the Regional Transport Officer; the Secretary of the RTA, who would be competent to air the opinion of the Regional Transport Authority, before the TRC. The order passed under Section 115 W.P.(C)NO.36561 OF 2018 :: 14 ::
cannot, in any way, be said to be in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, especially since the RTA has not, in the same sector, passed any contrary orders. In such circumstances, the contention raised by the petitioner with respect to a decision taken by the TRC is found to be unsustainable.
10. However, the grievance of the petitioners seem to be, insofar as they being not able to adhere to the timings allotted/settled by the Secretary, RTA; for reason of the 'one way traffic', since they are required to travel 3 (Three) kilometers more, when touching Ranni, which is an intermediary point between Thiruvalla and Vadasserikkara. That would be an aspect which has to be considered by the Secretary, R.T.A., if a proper application is made before that authority; after looking at the orders passed by the T.R.C. implementing the "one way traffic", as also the sustainability of an objection on that count, on facts.
In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed; however, reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Secretary, R.T.A. for consideration of the request for variation of timings. It is made clear that this Court has not found that the variation of timings is expedient or necessary, which issue would be exclusively within the domain of the Secretary, R.T.A."
15. Going through the materials on record as well as the decision cited supra, we are of the view that the Traffic Regulatory Committees constituted under Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 specifically confers power on the Traffic Regulatory Committees to regulate the manner and time of Traffic of all kinds in public places and the decision of such committees would certainly prevail upon the powers of the Regional Transport Authorities dealing with the granting of permits and variation thereof. Regulation of traffic is certainly a matter concerning law and order and maintaining of safety, which includes prevention of danger, obstruction and inconvenience caused to the general public in respect of traffic. That is why the Traffic Regulatory Committees are empowered to pass appropriate orders in the matter of regulating the manner and time of traffic all times in public places. Section 72(2) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 contemplates the presence of Regional Transport Officer also in the W.P.(C)NO.36561 OF 2018 :: 15 ::
said Traffic Regulatory Committees constituted under Section 72 of the Police Act, 2011. Thus, when the Regional Transport Officer himself is also a member of the Traffic Regulatory Committee, it should be reasonable to be presumed that his opinion is also considered in the deliberations. True that the Traffic Regulatory Committees should not issue orders not consistent with the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 for preventing danger, obstruction and inconvenience caused to the general public in respect of traffic and the matters specified under that Section. In the case on hand, the Traffic Advisory Committee, convened on 24.7.2018 at the Kondotty Municipality under the president-ship of the Municipal Chairman, Station Head Officer of Kondotty Police Station and the Chief Guest Kondotty MLA has taken a decision to give permission to the heavy duty vehicles to pass through the old Pazhayangadi road. Item No.3 of the above decision, is thus - "3. As part of the modification of the existing traffic system on and with effect from 1.8.2018 all the buses leading to Palakkad, Malappuram and Manjeri will pass through Pazhayangadi Road from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. of the Kondotty Municipality."
16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the Traffic Regulatory Committee is competent to decide the manner and time of traffic of all kinds in public places. Reasons assigned in the counter affidavit are also supportive to the decision taken. Therefore, the decisions taken by the Traffic Regulatory Committee in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 72 of the Police Act, 2011 cannot said to be arbitrary to the statutory provisions stated supra."
18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record, we are of the view that the Traffic Regulatory Committee has the power to regulate traffic. We find that the restriction has not affected the connectivity of the street nor its commercial importance.
Moreover, the restriction imposed for vehicular traffic is not a complete ban, W.P.(C)NO.36561 OF 2018 :: 16 ::
but a scheduled control between 11 AM to 9 PM. Therefore, we are of the view that the restriction imposed as part of regulatory measures is reasonable.
In the light of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the matter at this stage. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
SD/-
S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE SD/-
SHAJI P CHALY JUDGE jes W.P.(C)NO.36561 OF 2018 :: 17 ::
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.7.2014 IN A WRIT PETITION PROBORN BY THE WRIT PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 20.7.2013 TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA FOR PUBLIC CAUSE. EXHIBIT P2(a) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF CASH PAYMENT CARD IN THE YEAR 1991-1992 WHEN THE PETITIONER WAS EMPLOYED IN M/S.GRASSIM INDUSTRIES, MAVOOR. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MASTER PLAN SANCTIONED UNDER THE MADRAS TOWN PLANNING ACT IN 1999 SHOWING THE PUBLIC STREET "MITTAYI THERUVU".
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE "MITTAYI THERUVU". RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R3 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 29.12.2017 OF THE TRAFFIC REGULATING COMMITTEE ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT R3 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD IN THE CHAMBER OF THE HON'BLE MAYOR ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ROAD NETWORK MAP ANNEXURE R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECISION TAKEN IN TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 29.12.2017 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DECISION TAKEN IN THE MEETING HELD ON 4.1.2018 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE DATED 18.4.2018 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE R2(e) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE OF THE PEDESTRIANISED SERIES SM STREET.
// TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE