Kerala High Court
Mahamood Musaliyarakath @ Abdurahiman vs The Kondotty Municipality on 9 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 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 28210 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
MAHAMOOD MUSALIYARAKATH @ ABDURAHIMAN, AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O. AZEEZ MASTER, MUSALIYARAKATH HOUSE, PAZHAYANGADI, P.O. KONDOTTY,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 673 638
BY ADV SASIDHARAN P.C.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KONDOTTY MUNICIPALITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673638
2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
MALAPPURAM- 676 505.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM- 676505.
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D (ROADS DIVISION),
MANJERI- 676 121.
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM- 676 505.
6 THE TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE, KONDOTTY MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KONDOTTY MUNICIPALITY- 673 638.
7 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONDOTTY- 673 638.
BY ADV.SRI.K.P.HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.09.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018
:: 2 ::
JUDGMENT
S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.
Petitioner is stated to be the resident of Kondotty Municipality and also the Convenor of Kondotty Vikasana Forum. The main concern raised by the writ petitioner is with respect to the traffic congestion on the narrow stretch of the Kozhikode-Malappuram road where it touches Pazhayangadi town. According to the petitioner, the width of the road is only 5 meters and due to this, the traffic was diverted through the bypass. But now there is a proposal to permit heavy vehicles to pass through the narrow road.
Complaints were preferred against the said proposal and the District Collector, Malappuram called for a detailed report from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perinthalmanna. The Revenue Divisional Officer, by his report No.E.515/99 dated 22.2.1999 brought to the notice of the District Collector that there cannot be any change in the existing system and the present system of buses passing through bypass should be maintained and the old road cannot be used for any public traffic. The Revenue Divisional Officer categorically found that any change in the present traffic system through the narrow road is against the public interest.
2. The main concern raised by the writ petitioner in this writ petition is that the Traffic Advisory Committee of Kondotty Municipality has taken a W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018 :: 3 ::
decision to give permission to the heavy duty vehicles to pass through the old Pazhayangadi road. Hence this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exts.P6 and P7;
(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents to take a decision in the matter of introducing one way system on an abandoned road and permitting heavy goods vehicles to pass through the Pazhayangadi Road;
(iii) To declare that without the permission of the Regional Transport Authority the Municipality cannot change the present traffic system in Kondotty Municipality;
3. In support of the contentions raised in the writ petition, petitioner submitted that the decision taken by the Traffic Advisory Committee, as evidenced by Ext.P7, is illegal and without jurisdiction. The Traffic Advisory Committee is codified in the Police Act, 2011 and that the Traffic Advisory Committee can issue orders only for the limited purpose of preventing danger, obstruction or inconvenience caused to the general public in respect of traffic that too in the matters provided in the sub Rule 72(3) of the Act.
The introduction of the one way system or opening of a new road which was closed for years together for heavy traffic will not come within the purview of Section 72 of the Police Act. Another contention raised by the petitioner W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018 :: 4 ::
is that a bus stand is constructed on the side of the bypass road and the bypass road is constructed years back. The traffic in the area is having four line traffic and there is no traffic conjunction at all. Next contention raised by the petitioner is that in earlier proceedings, factual reports were obtained regarding the vehicular traffic through the Pazhayangadi road and it has been found that the old road is having only a width of not less than 6 meters and it cannot be permitted to be used for heavy vehicular traffic. The issue was given a quietus based on the earlier report of the R.T.O. But now under the guise of implementing the recommendation of the Traffic Advisory Committee, the entire thing was proposed to be re-opened which, according to the petitioner, is illegal. All the reports reveal that heavy traffic cannot be permitted through the narrow road. The sketch produced also evidentially proves this aspect. Moreover, there is no scope for widening the road due to the existence of 3 educational institutions - L.P. School and U.P. School, mosque, residential houses, commercial building etc. and that it is practically impossible to widen the road.
4. It is also brought to the notice of this court that in W.P.(C)No. 11953/2006, a similar writ petition filed by the President of Malappuram District Mini Bus Operators Association, Kondotty, pursuant to the direction of this court, an Advocate Commission was appointed and the following W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018 :: 5 ::
issues were referred for consideration by the said Advocate Commissioner:
"The following points were asked to be ascertained. They are:
1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. To note the fact that the decision of the RTA is to use Pazhayangadi Road under the one-way traffic system and whether the one-way traffic has been introduced through Pazhayangadi Road if there is any difficulty for the vehicular traffic.
5. To note that Pazhayangadi Road is abandoned or not?
6. To note that the buses coming from the present bus stand at Byepass road is passing through Thangals Road and reaching into the Pazhayangadi road and proceeds towards Malappuram side?
7. To note the width of Thangals road and the existing conditions of Thangals Road or Pazhayangadi Road is more convenient for the vehicular traffic?
8. To note the facts that whether slabs has been properly fixed on the sides of Pazhayangadi road as per the detection of RTA.
9. To note that if there is any L.P.Schools, School for Deaf and Dumb, College Mosque etc. are situated on the side of the Pazhayangadi Road and is it causing any inconvenience for the vehicular traffic?"
5. It is also to be noted that as per Ext.P5 report, the learned Advocate Commissioner in W.P.(C)No. 11953/2006 has remarked that there is drainage slabs and the road is having average width tarred portion of only 5.50 meters. The drainage is uneven at different points. There are some link roads and by-lanes joining the Pazhayangadi road on both sides. Relevant portion in the report reads as under:
W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018:: 6 ::
i) Pazhayangadi Road: In the Pazhayangadi road (proceedings towards Calicut) from the proposed bus stand to Valiya Jumath Palli passes a drain covered by concrete slabs. The drainage is uneven at different points. At certain points slabs were laid at 25cm height from the tarred road. On account of this elevation of the slabs accidents are likely and the utility of the road to that extent is reduced. The drainage has been constructed along the right side of the Pazhayangadi road. It starts from the junction where Assistant Engineer office is situated and ends at Paleri Moideen Kutty's residence. The slabs covering the drain lie at the same level to that of the tarred road in front of proposed bust stand and Khasiyarakom Masjid. The slabs are laid at a height of 25 to 30 CM from the tarred road in front of Swadeshi Furniture.
In front of the pickup lorry stand slabs there is no drainage or slabs. Near Khasiyarakom Masjid there is culvert having a length of 4.85 meter and the width of the tarred road at this point is 4.90 meter.
MEASUREMENTS OF PAZHAYANGADI ROAD
Area/Spot Total width including drainage slabs Tarred portion
Assistant Engineer Office 11.60 meter 5.60 meter
Proposed Bust Stand 8.00 meter 5.50 meter
Khasiyarakom Mosque 8.05 meter 5.30 meter
Residential Building 6.20 meter 4.50 meter
It is seen that the road narrows when we proceeds further. There are some link roads and by-lanes joining this Pazhayangadi road on both sides. There is no drainage towards the eastern side of the proposed but stand, on the right portion. There is a small road known as "Krishibhavan Cheppilakkunnu road, joining the "Pazhayangadi" road in front of the proposed bus stand and another link road on the side of Khasiyarakom Masjid. It can be seen from the report that the drainage slabs and the road is having average width tarred portion of only 5.50 meters."
6. Attention of this court has also been invited to Ext.P1, dated 22.2.1999, report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perinthalmanna wherein, W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018 :: 7 ::
the said authority has stated that there cannot be any change in the existing system and the present system of buses passing through bypass should be maintained and the old road cannot be used for any public traffic. In this report, Revenue Divisional Officer, Perinthalmanna, has categorically stated that any change in the present traffic system through the narrow road is against the public interest and persons, who advocates traffic through the narrow road, seem to have no consideration for the inconvenience and hardships especially, the chances of accidents to which the people will be put to. Relevant portions of Ext.P1 reads as under:
"From the suggestions made in the representations and the opinions expressed at the meeting, I could understand that the issue revolves round the following three options, (1) Continue the present traffic system, i.e., buses bound for Kozhikode to enter the busstand through the byepass road and go to Kozhikode through the same road. Buses coming from Kozhikode side to enter the bus stand through the byepass road then come to the old busstop through Thangal's road. (2) Bus going to Kozhikode to enter the busstand through the bye-
pass road and go to Kozhikode side through the same road. Buses coming from Kozhikode side to pass through the Pazhayangady road without entering the bus stand. On the bye-pass road, i.e., completely avoiding the bye-pass road.
(3) All buses to end from Kozhikode to pass through the bye-pass road only without passing through the old road and touching the old bus stop.
......................... .................................. ......... ........................................... .. The arguments in favour of the second proposal are that the Pazhayangady area is now in a neglected condition and the development of the area stands curtailed. If buses are allowed to W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018 :: 8 ::
pass through the road, it will help a great deal in the development of the area.
Arguments against the proposal are that the Pazhayangady road is a narrow one with houses on either sides, two L.P.Schools, a school for the deaf and the blind, a mosque and other public institutions. Hence traffic through the road will be very difficult. Several instances of accidents on this road in the past were pointed out. It was also argued that the proposed system will adversely affect passengers from the Melangady area and those going towards Tirurangady side since the passengers will have to walk a long distance to reach the bus stand.
......................... .................................. ......... ........................................... ..
My opinion in the matter is that change of the existing system should be for the better convenience of the public. It should not be influenced by the vested interests of other sections of the community. Those advocating for traffic through the narrow road seem to have no consideration for the inconvenience and hardships especially the chance of accidents to which the people will be put to. Convenience and safe traffic has to be ensured.
I therefore, submit that the matter may be passed before the R.T.A. and a suitable decision be taken."
7. Material on record further reveals that vide Ext.P6(a) minutes of the Traffic Advisory Committee held 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 deals with the above decision, which is as follows:W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018
:: 9 ::
"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."
8. 7th respondent/the Circle Inspector of Police has filed a counter affidavit stated that the Traffic Advisory Committee of Kondotty Municipality has convened a meeting on 24.07.2018 and another meeting was conveyed at Moyinkutty Vyder Academy presided by Sri. T.V.Ibrahim MLA on 29.07.2018 and has taken a decision to give permission to the buses to pass through the old Pazhayangadi road. Relevant portion of the counter affidavit reads as under:
"3. It is submitted that the Kozhikode - Malappuram road when it touches Pazhayangadi town, original width of the road is only 5 meters. On the both sides of the road there are large number of shop rooms, residential houses, schools, mosque etc. on the opening of the bypass the narrow street of Pazhayangadi town was closed for heavy vehicular.
4. It is submitted that there are 3 educational institutions - LP School and UP school and mosque and having at about 2000 students are studying in the above schools, residential houses and commercial building etc. are situated in the Pazhayangadi road.
5. It is submitted that the Chairman of the traffic Advisory Committee, Kondotty is Kondotty Municipal Chairman and convener is Inspector of Police, Kondotty. The traffic advisory Committee of Kondotty municipality has convened a meeting on 24/07/2018 and another meeting was conveyed at Moyinkutty Vyder Academy presided by Sri. T.V.Ibrahim MLA on 29.07.2018 and has taken a decision to give permission to the Buses to pass W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018 :: 10 ::
through the old Pazhayangadi road. The Committee minutes book and other relevant records are kept in the custody of Kondotty municipality office.
6. It is submitted that the incresant rain during the month August 2018 the Kondotty bypass road sunk at about one meter height with the flood which was stay turned for 3 days, during that time the high road and not affected the flood Pazhayangadi road was used for the traffic diversion on both sides.
7. It is submitted that the one way system through the Pazhayangadi road will be started after implementing the directions and report of commission ordered by the Hon'ble High Court is pending. Writ petition (Civil) No. 11953/2006 this Hon'ble High Court has ordered to take out a commission and the commission has also elaborately reported that the traffic system extensively dealt with the Pazhayangadi road.
8. It is submitted that only after putting slabs over drainage on both sides of the Pazhayangadi road for using foot path and widening the breadth of the road for smooth moving heavy vehicles otherwise traffic blocks will be a regular incident operation of the basis shall be basis shall be allowed in one way system from Kozhikode to Malappuram, Manjeri side only.
Through the Pazhayangadi road."
9. On the basis of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions for the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. That apart, referring to Rule 133 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which deals with 'the power of Regional Transport Authority' contention has been made that the power is conferred only on the Regional Transport Authority and not on the District Level Traffic Regulatory Authority constituted under Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.
W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018:: 11 ::
10. Mr.K.P.Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that meeting has been convened on 24.7.2018 by the Traffic Advisory Committee of Kondotty Municipality and decision was taken to repair the road.
According to him, during the month of August 2018, while the Kondotty bypass road sunk at about one meter height with the flood, it was not affected the Pazhayangadi road. Pazhayangadi road was used for the traffic diversion on both sides. Placing reliance on the decision reported in 2014 (4) KLT 123 [Pathanamthitta District Private Bus Operators Association v. Traffic Regulatory Committee] in W.P.(C)20218 of 2014, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that Section 72 of the Police Act, 2011 specifically confers power on the T.R.C., by sub-clause (a) of sub-section (2), to regulate the manner and time of traffic of all kinds in public places. He further submitted that Rule 133 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 has no relevance in the context of regulating traffic. For the abovesaid reasons, learned Senior Government Pleader prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
12. As regards the contention of the petitioner that regulation of traffic has to be done by the Regional Transport Authority, reference has been made to Rule 133 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which reads W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018 :: 12 ::
thus:
133.Power of Regional Transport Authority ‐ Delegation to Secretary.‐ (1) The Regional Transport Authority may, for the prompt and convenient despatch of business, by general or special resolution delegate to the Secretary, any or all of the following functions.‐
(a) power under Sections 71 and 72 of the Act to grant but not to refuse a stage carriage permit when the number of stage carriages are not fixed under clause (a) of sub ‐section (3) of Section 71 of the Act;
(b) power to attach to a stage carriage permit conditions under sub‐section (2) of Section 72 of the Act or any prescribed conditions;
(c) power under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act to grant or refuse a contract carriage permit where the number of contract carriages are not fixed under clause (a) of sub ‐section (3) of Section 74 of the Act and power under sub ‐section (2) of Section 74 of the Act to attach conditions to a contract carriage permit;
(d) power under Section 76 of the Act to grant or refuse a private service vehicle permit and power under sub ‐section (3) of Section 76 of the Act to attach conditions to such permits;
(e) power under Sections 78 and 79 of the Act to grant or refuse a goods carriage permit and power under sub ‐section (2) of Section 79 of the Act to attach conditions to a goods carriage permit;
(f) power to entertain a belated application for renewal of permit under sub‐section (3) of Section 81;
(g) power to renew or refuse to renew a permit under Section 81 of the Act and power to countersign or refuse to countersign a permit under Section 88 of the Act:
Provided however that this power does not extend to refusing either to renew or to countersign a stage carriage permit.
(h) power under sub‐section (1) of Section 82 of the Act to transfer or refuse to transfer a permit save in the case of stage carriages and power under sub‐section (3) of Section 82 of the Act in respect of all vehicles on the death of a permit holder, W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018 :: 13 ::
(i) power under Section 83 of the Act to allow replacement of one vehicle by another,
(j) power under Section 87 of the Act to grant or refuse a temporary permit;
(k) power to refuse to entertain applications for grant or renewal of permits and for grant of counter ‐signature of permits when such applications are not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and of the rules made thereunder or are inadmissible under any orders passed by the State or Regional Transport Authority in exercise of their powers under the Act;
(l) power under Section 103 of the Act to grant permits to the State Transport Undertakings;
(m) power to grant temporary permit under sub‐section (7) of Section 88 of the Act,
(n) power to grant special permit under sub‐section (8) of Section 88 of the Act;
(na) power to grant national permit in respect of goods carriages under sub‐section (12) of Section 88 of the Act and authorisation for such permit:)
(o) power under Section 86 of the Act to suspend a permit, power under sub‐section (4) of Section 88 of the Act read with Section 86 of the Act to suspend counter ‐signature of permits and power under sub‐section (5) of Section 86 of the Act to recover from the holder of the permit a sum of money agreed upon to pay, lieu of suspension of permit or suspension of counter‐ signature of permit;
(p) power to vary the conditions of the permit specified under sub‐section (3) of Section 80 of the Act;
(q) power to fix the number of standing passengers the vehicle may be permitted to carry, or the permit holder may be required to carry, in any public service vehicle other than a motor cab under sub‐rule (2) of Rule 267;
(r) power to approve fare table with or without modification in respect of a stage carriage.
(s) power to grant permission for advertisement or writing on vehicles under Rule 191.]
2) (a) The Regional Transport Authority may by general W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018 :: 14 ::
resolution delegate to the Additional District Magistrate (Executive) the power under Section 87 of the Act to grant a temporary permit for a transport vehicle for a specified journey in any emergency;
(b) The Additional District Magistrate shall make a report of the action taken by him in exercise of the power delegated under sub‐rule (a) to the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority who shall place such reports before the Authority at its next meeting.
3) The Regional Transport Authority may by resolution delegate to the Joint Regional Transport Officer of the region and to the Joint Regional Transport Officer of the Sub‐Regional Transport Office all or any of the powers that may be delegated to the Secretary under sub‐rule (1) subject to the conditions specified in the resolution.
4) The Regional Transport Authority may, by general resolution, delegate to its Chairman, the power to grant prior concurrence referred to in sub‐rule (c) of Rule 170.
5) The Regional Transport Authority may, by general resolution, delegate to the Motor Vehicle Inspectors of the border check‐ posts of the region, the power under Section 87 of the Act to grant or refuse a temporary permit for short term for 7 days/30 days to goods carriages arriving from other States to operate in this [State, the power] under Rule 166 to issue endorsements on primary permits issued to public service vehicles of other States to operate for one round trip in this State [and also the power to grant or refuse a special permit under sub‐section (8) of Section 88 of the Act in relation to vehicles proceeding to places outside the State].
13. 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.W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018
:: 15 ::
(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;
(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.W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018
:: 16 ::
(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.
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. 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.W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018
:: 17 ::
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 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 W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018 :: 18 ::
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 said Traffic Regulatory Committees constituted under Section 72 of the W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018 :: 19 ::
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.W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018
:: 20 ::
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.
17. In the light of the above discussion, interim stay granted by this court on 21st August 2018 is vacated. Respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
Writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE jes W.P.(C)No.28210 of 2018 :: 21 ::
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.E.515/99 DATED 22.02.1999 SUBMITTED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.15382/1993 DATED 19.11.1993.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.29146/2003 DATED 03.02.2005.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE ROAD AND THE EXISTING BUS STAND.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER DATED 07.09.2005.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P6 NOTIFICATION.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE KONDOTTY MUNICIPALITY DATED 24.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P7 NOTICE.
EXHIBIT P8 THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PAZHAYANGADI ROAD AND THE EXISTING BYPASS.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 27.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P9(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P9 REPRESENTATION.
// TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE