Kerala High Court
Rajalekshmi Nagar Residence vs The State Of Kerala on 2 April, 2009
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18785 of 2007(J)
1. RAJALEKSHMI NAGAR RESIDENCE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,
3. THE ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER
4. THE DIRECTOR,
5. THE SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
For Respondent :SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :02/04/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
........................................................................
W.P.(C) No.18785 OF 2007
.........................................................................
Dated this the 2nd April, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner Association has approached this Court challenging the action being pursued by the respondents No. 4 and 5 to remove the 'No Parking Board' installed by the police authorities on the side of the bye-lane and to have their vehicles parked thereby causing obstruction of passage to the members of the Association.
2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 4 and 5, whose offices are situated on the side of the National Highway are parking their vehicles along the bye-lane, causing serious hardships to the residents of the area, which made the petitioner to approach the authorities including under the district administration as well as the police by filing necessary representations. Pursuant to the steps taken as above, the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram who is the Administrative Head of the district and Executive Magistrate issued a direction to the police authorities to re-instal the 'No Parking Board' at the place, which was stated as removed by the persons acting under W.P.(C) No.18785 OF 2007 2 the respondents No. 4 and 5. The petitioner submits that though the Board has been reinstalled on the bye-lane, the respondents No.4 and 5 were causing wilful obstruction just to cause harassment and hardship to the beneficiaries of the bye-lane and hence the Writ Petition.
3. When the matter came up for consideration before this court on 19.06.2007, an interim order was passed giving directions to the concerned respondents to see that the office bearers of the respondents No.4 and 5 do not cause to remove the 'No Parking Board' installed on the bye-road as shown in Ext. P2 sketch. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no untoward incident has taken place after the issuance of the interim order and that the same might be made absolute.
4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The said counter affidavit appears to have been prepared and executed by the deponent in a reckless manner as seen from the last two sentences of paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit, which are extracted below:
"The offices of respondents 4 and 5 are
W.P.(C) No.18785 OF 2007
3
situated on the side of the National Highway and the bye lane mentioned in the petition.
Their main access to the National Highway is through this bye road" (emphasis is supplied). This court finds it very difficult to understand the meaning or the intention of the deponent in making the above statement pointing out that the main access to the office situated with direct access to the National Highway is "through the bye-road"
as shown in Ext.P2 sketch. The sense of understanding of the deponent cannot but be doubted. The reckless approach displayed by him is more evident from the statement made in paragraph No. 7, wherein he has submitted that the 'No Parking Board' has been placed on the bye lane by the petitioner's Association themselves and that it has been done without seeking any permission from any authorities, and hence is illegal.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that none other than the 'District Collector' himself has passed the order to replace the Board as endorsed on Ext.P4 representation W.P.(C) No.18785 OF 2007 4 filed before him; giving appropriate directions to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Traffic (North). This shows the cursory manner in which the affidavit has been caused to be filed before this Court, which cannot but be deprecated in the strongest possible words. Filing of such false, incorrect and reckless affidavit is liable to be considered as an act of contempt of court, as made clear by the Apex Court on many an occasion. However, taking note of the persuasive submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, no further action is intended to be pursued against the deponent In the above circumstances, this Court makes the interim order dated 19.06.2007 absolute and the Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
lk