Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 764 (KER)

Chandramathy C. G. v. State of Kerala

2012-08-10

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, MANJULA CHELLUR

body2012
JUDGMENT : Mrs. Manjula Chellur, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Government Pleader Sri. Davis. 2. These two appeals arises out of a common judgment dated 07/06/2012. One Association representing the Kerala Autorickshaw Drivers' Welfare Association, Pathanamthitta, approached the learned Single Judge in WP (C) 11644 of 2012 and so also a particular owner and driver of an autorickshaw approached the learned Single Judge in WP (C) 12000/2012, seeking the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exts. P2, P3 and P5 and quash the same to the extent it is objected, (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents not to insist to paint the front portion of the autorickshaws with yellow paint. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to grant permit to the autorickshaws which are painted in accordance with Rules, and (iv) grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case including the cost of this Writ Petition. 3. The challenge in the Writ Petition was against the action of Pathanamthitta Municipality laying condition for grant of permit that the front portion of autorickshaws shall be painted in cream yellow colour and the rest of the body in black. In other words, Municipality took a decision to request the Transport Authority to issue permits to only such autorickshaws which comply with the above directions, within the limits of town. Aggrieved by the same, the Writ Petitioners approached the learned Single Judge contending that the stipulation of the Municipality is in utter violation of Rule 295 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules of 1989. 4. As a matter of fact, entire discussion in the judgment of learned Single Judge was around the word "hood", in order to understand what exactly was the intention of the Municipality in stipulating that the hood of autorickshaws has to be painted in cream yellow colour. According to respondents, District Road Safety Council of Pathanamthitta n its proceedings proposed the re-arrangement of the parking places within the limits of Pathanamthitta Municipality and so also fixation of the maximum number of autorickshaws in each stand. According to respondents, District Road Safety Council of Pathanamthitta n its proceedings proposed the re-arrangement of the parking places within the limits of Pathanamthitta Municipality and so also fixation of the maximum number of autorickshaws in each stand. In that direction, in order to have clear identification of autorickshaws during night hours and also to know whether the autorickshaws belong to a particular area having permit is plying or not, this stipulation of front portion of the autorickshaws to be painted in cream yellow colour was advised. Accordingly, the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 26/04/2012, took the decision to ratify the decision of the Road Safety Council, Pathanamthitta dated 22/06/2011 and also restricted the total number of permits to be issued in the limits of Pathanamthitta to 1250. 5. Apart from indicating 32 parking places with code numbers and also with single or two digits numbering from 1 to 32, other decisions also with regard to the painting of the J front portion of autorickshaws in cream yellow colour, in order to ensure visibility from long distance during night was taken. Certain directions were also given to complete the implementation of the decision to paint all autorickshaws covered by town permit at Adoor and Thiruvalla within a time frame. It is the contention of the writ petitioners/appellants that as per Rule 295, only the hood portion is required to be painted in cream yellow, therefore, the front portion of autorickshaws if painted in cream yellow is nothing but violation of Rule 295. 6. Rule 295 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules reads as under: "295. Painting and marking of.- No motor cab shall be permitted to ply if it does not conform to the provisions of this rule- (a) colour of the hood of all autorickshaws shall be painted in cream yellow and rest of the body in black." The question which arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge was what would exactly a hood means so far as an autorickshaw is concerned. After referring to several meanings of the word "hood", the learned Judge opined that it was to be understood with reference to the context. After referring to several meanings of the word "hood", the learned Judge opined that it was to be understood with reference to the context. Ultimately, the learned Judge arrived at an opinion that the word "hood" in generic sense so far as in relation to a motor vehicle it would mean the covering of the engine of a vehicle or it can also mean soft folding cover of the roof of a car. If one goes by meaning of "hood" in the strict sense when it comes to autorickshaws with reference to the context, why such stipulation was recommended by the District Road Safety Council followed by the Transport Authority would only take us to one and only conclusion that during night one must be able to see the autorickshaw from a distance which would allow either the police or other authorities concerned to identify the vehicle from far so as to avoid anti-social activities that were to be committed by using an autorickshaw. Apart from that, if this condition is followed, the customer who uses autorickshaws or the authorities either police, transport authorities, forest department etc. would be able to identify whether the vehicle belongs to Pathanamthitta Town limits or not? This would allow authorities to identify the vehicle which ultimately leads to the identification of the owner enabling the authorities to know which vehicle was used for anti-social activities, if such incident were to come to the notice of the authorities. Therefore, by introducing the above stipulation as per the District Road Safety Council, there is no violation of Rule 295A as with reference to the autorickshaws "hood" means the front portion of autorickshaws. Therefore, in the above circumstances the reason why this stipulation was contemplated. When we compare it with the meaning in Rule 295 it would lead to only one conclusion that the front portion of the autorickshaws has to be painted in cream yellow colour treating it as the hood of the autorickshaws. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was justified in saying, there is no violation of any of the Rules by this stipulation introduced so far as the Transport Authorities in respect of autorickshaws that are used within the town Municipality limits of Pathanamthitta. Accordingly, appeals are dismissed. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was justified in saying, there is no violation of any of the Rules by this stipulation introduced so far as the Transport Authorities in respect of autorickshaws that are used within the town Municipality limits of Pathanamthitta. Accordingly, appeals are dismissed. It is also brought to our notice by the learned Government Pleader that such stipulation is adopted even in Corporations of Kozhikode and Thrissur and Alappuzha Municipality.