Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 766 (KER)

John Christopher v. District Police Chief

2018-09-27

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

body2018
JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioners claim to be the owners of four excavators, having registration Nos. TN 30 AC 5352, TN 72 AA 1342, TN 07 BH 4794 and TN 75 Y 3196 respectively. 2. According to the petitioners, the vehicles in question are registered as non-transport vehicles and that they do not require any permit to operate in the State of Kerala. They allege that even though they had paid tax, as applicable in the State of Kerala as per the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, copies of the receipts of which have been produced on record as Exhibits P1 to P4, respondents 6 to 8, who are owners of similar vehicles in Kerala are obstructing them from operating the said vehicles. They, therefore, pray that the concerned police officials be directed to afford them effective and adequate protection from the threats and violence from respondents 6 to 8. 3. The learned senior Government Pleader submits, on instructions, that a statement has been filed by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Kazhakkoottum, as directed by this Court on 09.08.2018, averring that even though the vehicles of the petitioners are registered as non-transport ones, thus requiring no permit, they are obligated to pay tax for operating in Kerala under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. He says that on enquiry by the competent Authority, it has been found that as regards the vehicles bearing Nos. TN30 AC 5352 and TN BH 4794, the tax has been accepted by the Authorities in error until 31.12.2018, because it should have been accepted only until 31.12.2017 and that steps have now been taken to initiate refund of the excess tax paid. He further says that as regards the vehicle bearing No. TN 75 Y 3196 is concerned, the tax collected with respect to this vehicle was only till 31.12.2018 and therefore, that the said vehicle cannot be now permitted to ply in Kerala any further. As regards the 3rd vehicle, namely TN 72 AA 1342 is concerned, he says that the said vehicle is found to have no valid documents at all. The learned senior Government Pleader, therefore, submits that the petitioners' plea for police protection is not tenable. 4. As regards the 3rd vehicle, namely TN 72 AA 1342 is concerned, he says that the said vehicle is found to have no valid documents at all. The learned senior Government Pleader, therefore, submits that the petitioners' plea for police protection is not tenable. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 to 8 vehemently asserts that the petitioners have no right to use the vehicles in Kerala and that they have no locus to file this writ petition, particularly, because they are not the owners of the vehicles in question. She says that the tax receipts produced by the petitioners themselves would show this. After saying so, the learned counsel, however, submits that the allegations against her client, that they are intimidating and threatening the petitioners, are completely untrue and no such conduct has ever been noticed even by the police. 5. In the afore circumstances, we are of the opinion that this is not a case where we can exercise our jurisdiction and grant orders of continuous police protection to the petitioners, particularly to use their vehicles. At the best, the petitioners can only claim that their life be protected from the alleged threat and intimidation from respondents 6 to 8 or the persons under them. However, they cannot use our orders to operate their vehicles without the permission of the competent Authorities under the Road Transport Department. 6. In the afore circumstances, we order this writ petition and direct the 4th and 5th respondents - the S.I. Of Police Nedumangad and Pothencode Police Stations respectively, to afford protection to the petitioners, if any complaint is made by them regarding threat or intimidation from respondents 6 to 8 or any person acting under them. These two officers, however, shall ensure that the law and order is always maintained and that disputes between the parties do not spill over into the public realm. 7. We clarify that these directions cannot be used by the petitioners to operate their vehicles and that they will be enjoined to obtain necessary permissions from the competent Authority if they want to do so. This Writ Petition is thus ordered.