Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 45 (KER)

Pampa Samyuktha Drivers Union v. State Of Kerala

2025-01-09

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.

body2025
JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner, namely, Pamba Samyuktha Drivers Union, with registration No.PTM/TC/38/2022, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus restraining respondents 2 to 6 from interfering with or obstructing the Taxi Operators registered with Sub Regional Transport Office, Ranni from operating in accordance with their Contract Carriage Permits (Motor Cab Permits) in Nilakkal-Pamba area. The document marked as Ext.P1 is a communication dated 18.12.2021 of the 5 th respondent Regional Transport Officer, Pathanamthitta to the Transport Commissioner, Kerala for sanctioning a taxi stand at Nilakkal, in case the 2 nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board takes a favourable decision, subject to the approval of this Court. The document marked as Ext.P2 is the reply dated 24.12.2021 of the Transport Commissioner, addressed to the petitioner, forwarding Ext.P1. The document marked as Ext.P3 is a letter dated 22.02.2022 of the concerned MLA to the Minister for Transport, Kerala. The documents marked as Exts.P5 to P8 are the check reports dated 02.01.2025 and 05.01.2025 issued against the taxi drivers, who are stated to be the members of the petitioner association. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3 to 6 and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for the 2 nd respondent. 3. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. Section 15A of the Act, inserted by Act 5 of 2007, with effect from 12.04.2007, deals with duties of the Board. As per Section 15A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the following functions, namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu religious institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees. 4. Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple come under the Travancore Devaswom Board. 4. Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple come under the Travancore Devaswom Board. Sabarimala is a prominent pilgrim centre in Kerala, where lakhs of pilgrims trek the rugged terrains of the Western Ghats to have darshan of Lord Ayyappa. Pamba Ganapathy Temple also comes under the Travancore Devaswom Board, which is a holy spot on the way from Pamba to Sannidanam, dedicated to Lord Ganesha, where the pilgrims offer prayer for safe trekking to Sannidanam. Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple is situated inside Periyar Tiger Reserve. Sabarimala and its vicinity are a Special Security Zone under Section 83(1) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, vide G.O.(Ms.)No.74/2024/Home dated 14.10.2024 issued by the State Government, in order to exercise the powers under Section 83(2) of the said Act, to ensure a safe, secure and hassle-free pilgrimage. 5. In Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2022 (7) KHC SN 5] this Court noticed that Sabarimala is situated in a difficult forest terrain prone to natural disasters. Unlike other temples in Kerala, Kerala Police is responsible for crowd management and maintenance of law and order in Sabarimala during festival seasons and monthly poojas. In temples like Guruvayur, where queue regulation is managed by the temple authorities, the online system can also be managed by them. However, in Sabarimala, crowd management during festival seasons is a challenging task, which is regulated by the Kerala Police. Their presence is even necessary at ‘Pathinettampadi’ to render necessary assistance to the devotees, especially children, senior citizens and also persons with disabilities. Crowd Management at Sabarimala during festival seasons and monthly poojas cannot be handled with the limited number of employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board, who are deputed on special duty. In the said decision, this Court held that crowd management by the Kerala Police at Sabarimala Sannidhanam and even at Pathinettampadi will not in any manner infringe the fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. In the said decision, this Court directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to take over the Virtual-Q system for Sabarimala darshan, owned and managed by Kerala Police, with the technical support of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. (TCS Ltd.) and thereafter, TCS Ltd. shall render necessary technical support to the Board. In the said decision, this Court directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to take over the Virtual-Q system for Sabarimala darshan, owned and managed by Kerala Police, with the technical support of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. (TCS Ltd.) and thereafter, TCS Ltd. shall render necessary technical support to the Board. Once the ownership and management of Virtual-Q system are transferred, the Board has to scrupulously follow the requirements of the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Data or Information) Rules, 2011. Verification of Virtual-Q tickets and other related matters are the responsibilities of the Kerala Police, as part of crowd management. For effective crowd management during festival seasons and also monthly poojas the Kerala Police should have access to the database in the Virtual-Q system. When specific threat inputs have been received in respect of Sabarimala Temple, the Kerala Police will have to take preventive action after screening and verifying the database. Any access to the database in the Virtual-Q platform by Kerala Police, for crowd control during festival seasons and also monthly poojas, in order to avoid a stampede or an untoward, or for taking any preventive action in case any specific threat or security input, would not amount to an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of pilgrims. 6. In Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others [2023 (4) KHC SN 11] - order dated 20.01.2023 in SSCR 23 of 2022 and DBP No.70 of 2022 - this Court issued various directions regarding (i) Police Bandobast Scheme for Mandala- Makaravilakku festival season [Para.15.4], (ii) Facilities by the Forest Department in the traditional trekking path [Para.16.5], (iii) Fixation price of food items in the eateries [Para.19.1], (iv) Annadhanam at Sabarimala, Pamba and Nilakkal [Para.20.2], (v) Crowd Management at Pamba and Sannidhanam [Para.22.5], (vi) Crowd and vehicle management at Nilakkal [Para.23.1], (vii) KSRTC buses for Sabarimala Pilgrims and Nilakkal-Pamba Chain Service [Para.25.6], (viii) Entry of Vehicles from Nilakkal and parking of vehicles at Pamba [Para.28.4]. By the order dated 20.01.2023, SSCR 23 of 2022 and DBP No.70 of 2022 were disposed of by directing that the directions contained therein are complied with, in letter and spirit, by all concerned, during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival seasons. 7. By the order dated 20.01.2023, SSCR 23 of 2022 and DBP No.70 of 2022 were disposed of by directing that the directions contained therein are complied with, in letter and spirit, by all concerned, during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival seasons. 7. During the current Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season of 1200 M.E. (2024-25) this Court has issued directions in SSCR No.79 of 2024 directing strict compliance of the aforesaid directions contained in the order dated 20.01.2023 in SSCR No.23 of 2022 and DBP No.70 of 2022, in order to ensure that the pilgrims have a safe and comfortable pilgrimage during the festival season. 8. In Viswa Hindu Parishad Kerala v. State of Kerala and others [2023:KER:33228] a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party considered the permission sought for by that organisation to manage and operate transportation of pilgrims from Nilakkal to Pamba and vice versa, free of cost, in contract carriages having valid permits. After a detailed consideration of the matter, with reference to the relevant statutory provisions and the law on the point, the Division Bench dismissed that writ petition; however, leaving open certain legal issues, including the grant of special permits under Section 88(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to contract carriages taken on lease for free transportation of pilgrims from Nilakkal to Pamba and vice versa, in an appropriate case. In paragraph 51 of the said judgment, the Division Bench culled out from the decisions referred to therein the legal principles on the distinction between a ‘contract carriage’ and a ‘stage carriage’. Paragraphs 51 and 52 of the said decision [2023:KER:33228] read thus; “51. The legal principles that can be culled out from the decisions referred to supra are as follows; (i) The distinction between a ‘contract carriage’ and a ‘stage carriage’ is that a contract carriage is engaged for the whole of the journey between two points for the carriage of a person or persons hiring it but it has not the right to pick up other passengers en route. The stage carriage, on the other hand, runs between two points irrespective of any prior contract and it is boarded by passengers en route who pay the fare for the distance they propose to travel. The stage carriage, on the other hand, runs between two points irrespective of any prior contract and it is boarded by passengers en route who pay the fare for the distance they propose to travel. [Roshan Lal Gautham - AIR 1965 SC 991 ]; (ii) The dominant factor that determines whether a transport vehicle is plied as a ‘contract carriage’ or as a ‘stage carriage’ is the actual user of the vehicle and not the permit granted authorising the use. The contract, express or implied, to use the vehicle must be as a whole for a fixed sum. The essential condition is that a single party or person should be exercising full control for the use of the vehicle. If there is no single contract in respect of the vehicle and if no person or leader of the party could exercise full control of the vehicle and several passengers have separately contracted for the use of the vehicle and paid individual fares, such a transport vehicle cannot fall within the definition of ‘contract carriage’. But if there is a prior contract for the use of the vehicle as a whole with the owner, the mere fact that individual fares were collected by the leader of the party from the passengers does not make the vehicle a ‘stage carriage’. [V. Govindarajulu - AIR 1986 AP 7 (FB)]; (iii) It is not possible to read the words ‘under a contract’ in clause (7) of Section 2 of the MV Act, 1989 as referring to both a single contract and more than one contract. If such a construction is accepted there would be no distinction between ‘stage carriage’ and ‘contract carriage’ permits. A ‘stage carriage’ is intended to meet the requirements of the general travelling public. On the other hand, ‘contract carriages’ are for those who want to hire the vehicle collectively or individually for a group or party for their transport from place to place and the whole vehicle is at their disposal. The contract shall be prior and the persons who are to be carried shall be known prior to the journey is also clear from the other limitation that the vehicle cannot stop to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during the journey. The contract shall be prior and the persons who are to be carried shall be known prior to the journey is also clear from the other limitation that the vehicle cannot stop to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during the journey. If the contract carriage permit holder can pick up individual passengers at the starting point of the journey it is virtually a stage carriage with corridor restriction. The definition of ‘contract carriage’ in clause (7) of Section 2 of the MV Act, 1988 has added the words ‘for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein’ (contract) which were not there in clause (3) of Section 2 of the MV Act, 1939 as amended by Act 56 of 1960. These words clearly show that there must be a prior contract and the passengers shall be settled in advance. [Brijendra Kumar Chaudhari – (1992) 4 SCC 703 ]; (iv) The very permit for which the contract for carriage of the passengers granted should contain the names of the passengers to carry from one destination to another destination without picking up or setting down en route for hire or reward but when the holder of a permit is another and permits them to carry the passengers and make the contract dehors those mentioned in the list of passengers enclosed to the permit as contract carriage and take the passengers from one destination to another, even without picking up or setting down en route, the necessary consequence would be that the vehicle has been or is being used as a ‘stage carriage’ but not a ‘contract carriage’. [Nirmala Jagdishchandra Kabra - (1997) 9 SCC 227 ] (v) The distinction between a ‘stage carriage’ permit and a ‘contract carriage’ permit, as envisaged by the Legislature has to be maintained as the two types of permits are intended to meet different requirements. The ‘contract carriages’ are for those who want to hire the vehicle collectively or individually for a group or a party for their transport to a destination/destinations. The vehicle has to be hired as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned in the contract. There has to be only one contract for carrying the passengers mentioned in the contract from one destination to another. The vehicle has to be hired as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned in the contract. There has to be only one contract for carrying the passengers mentioned in the contract from one destination to another. An agent or a group of persons/individuals cannot hire a public service vehicle for going from one place to another with passengers having different purposes. If contract carriage permit holder is permitted to pick up individual or a few of them from the starting point of journey and drop them at the last terminus of the route it would virtually be a ‘stage carriage’ with corridor restriction. A ‘stage carriage’ is intended to meet the requirements of the general public travelling from one destination to another having different purposes whereas a ‘contract carriage’ is meant for those who want to hire a public service vehicle as a whole collectively for their transport from one destination to another having the same purpose. [Noorulla Khan - (2004) 6 SCC 194 ]; (vi) The fundamental difference between a ‘contract carriage’ and a ‘stage carriage’ is that in the former there is a prior contract by the passenger or passengers for that carriage to be used as a whole for a fixed or agreed sum, while in the latter there is absence of such a prior contract and the passengers can board that carriage en route in individual capacity and pay the fare for the distance they travel. If a ‘contract carriage’, which is granted permit under Section 74 of the MV Act is operated as a ‘stage carriage’, which requires grant of stage carriage permit under Section 72 of the said Act, it will amount to contravention of permit conditions. [Sunilraj - 2019 (2) KLT 211 ]. 52. Therefore, a ‘contract carriage’ is meant for those who want to hire the vehicle collectively or individually for a group or a party having the same purpose, for their transport from one place to another. The vehicle has to be hired as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned in the contract, i.e., the whole vehicle will be at their disposal. On the other hand, a ‘stage carriage’ is intended to meet the requirements of the general public travelling from one place to another having different purposes. The vehicle has to be hired as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned in the contract, i.e., the whole vehicle will be at their disposal. On the other hand, a ‘stage carriage’ is intended to meet the requirements of the general public travelling from one place to another having different purposes. Therefore, an agent or a group of persons/individuals cannot hire a ‘contract carriage’ for going from one place to another with passengers having different purposes. If individual passengers having different purposes are picked up in a ‘contract carriage’, at the starting point of the journey or en route, even if such passengers are included in the contract, it is virtually a ‘stage carriage’ with corridor restriction.” 9. In Viswa Hindu Parishad Kerala [2023:KER: 33228] , the Division Bench held that if the contract carriage permit holder can pick up individual passengers from the starting point and drop them at the last terminus of the route, it is virtually a stage carriage with corridor restriction. If a ‘contract carriage’ which is granted permit under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is operated as a stage carriage, which requires grant of stage carriage permit under Section 72 of the said Act, it will amount to contravention of permit conditions, attracting the penal provisions under Section 192A of the said Act, for using vehicle without permit. Paragraphs 53 to 57 of the said decision read thus; “53. As per sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the MV Act, no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. As per Section 84 of the MV Act, the conditions enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) thereof shall be the conditions of every permit. As per Section 84 of the MV Act, the conditions enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) thereof shall be the conditions of every permit. As per sub-section (1) of Section 192A of the MV Act, whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of a permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than three months or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both. As per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 192A, the court may for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment. 54. Sub-section (1) of Section 192A, as inserted/ substituted by Section 75 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 [with effect from 01.09.2019], provides that whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 66 or in contravention of any condition of a permit relating to the route on which or the area in which or the purpose for which the vehicle may be used, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and a fine of ten thousand rupees and for any subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year but shall not be less than six months or with fine of ten thousand rupees or with both. As per proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 192A, the Court may for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment. 55. As per proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 192A, the Court may for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment. 55. In the instant case, the main relief sought for in this writ petition is a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to permit the petitioner to manage and operate transportation of pilgrims from Nilakkal to Pamba and vice versa, free of cost, in contract carriages having valid permits, as requested in Ext.P3 representation dated 22.11.2022 submitted before the 4 th respondent District Collector, Pathanamthitta, who is also the Chairperson of the Regional Transport Authority, Pathanamthitta. The averments in the writ petition and also that contained in Ext.P3 representation would make it explicitly clear that the petitioner wants to manage and operate transportation of pilgrims from Nilakkal to Pamba and vice versa, free of cost, in contract carriages having valid permits, with seating capacity below 26 seats. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent State to consider Ext.P3 representation made before the 4 th respondent District Collector and also a writ of mandamus commanding the 4 th respondent District Collector to see that requisite special permits under Section 88(8) of the MV Act is issued to the vehicles offered by the petitioner for free transportation of pilgrims between Nilakkal and Pamba. In that context, the petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the Scheme notified vide Ext.P4 notification, i.e., G.O.(Ms)No.144/67/PW dated 20.07.1967 and the Scheme notified vide Ext.P5 notification, i.e., G.O.(P)No.54/91/PW&T dated 12.07.1991 will not restrict the operation of contract carriages between Nilakkal and Pamba. 56. The specific case of the petitioner is that, having regard to the plight of Sabarimala pilgrims, the petitioner has proposed a free service from Nilakkal to Pamba and vice versa, by taking 20 contract carriages on lease for free transportation of the pilgrims. In paragraphs 7 to 9 of the writ petition, the petitioner would point out the provisions under Section 2(7), 2(35), 2(47), 73, 74 and 88(8) of the MV Act. Clause (7) of Section 2 of the MV Act defines ‘contract carriage’; Clause (35) of Section 2 defines ‘public service vehicle’ and Clause (47) of Section 2 defines ‘transport vehicle’. Section 73 of the MV Act deals with application for contract carriage permit and Section 74 deals with grant of contract carriage permit. Clause (7) of Section 2 of the MV Act defines ‘contract carriage’; Clause (35) of Section 2 defines ‘public service vehicle’ and Clause (47) of Section 2 defines ‘transport vehicle’. Section 73 of the MV Act deals with application for contract carriage permit and Section 74 deals with grant of contract carriage permit. Sub-section (8) of Section 88 deals with special permit granted to any public service vehicle, including a vehicle covered by a stage carriage permit granted under Section 72 of the MV Act (including a reserve stage carriage), a contract carriage permit granted under Section 74 or an All-India permit granted under sub-section (9) of Section 88. 57. In view of the legal principles culled out hereinbefore at paragraph 53, a ‘stage carriage’ is intended to meet the requirements of the general travelling public. On the other hand, ‘contract carriages’ are for those who want to hire the vehicle collectively or individually for a group or a party for their transport to a destination or destinations and the whole vehicle is at their disposal. If the contract carriage permit holder can pick up individual passengers or few of them at the starting point and drop them at the last terminus of the route, it is virtually a stage carriage with corridor restriction. If a ‘contract carriage’ which is granted permit under Section 74 of the MV Act, is operated as a stage carriage, which requires grant of stage carriage permit under Section 72 of the said Act, it will amount to contravention of permit conditions, attracting the penal provisions under Section 192A of the said Act, for using vehicle without permit.” 10. In Viswa Hindu Parishad Kerala [2023:KER: 33228] the Division Bench held that the operation of contract carriages covered by permits granted under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which are granted with special permits under Section 88(8) of the said Act, for transportation of pilgrims from Nilakkal to Pamba and vice versa will amount to contravention of permit conditions, attracting the penal provisions under Section 192A of the said Act, for using vehicle without permit, since it is virtually a stage carriage with corridor restriction. Therefore, no writ of mandamus can be sought for, invoking the provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, commanding respondents 1 to 4 to permit the petitioner to manage and operate transportation of pilgrims from Nilakkal to Pamba and vice versa in contract carriages having valid permits under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which are issued with special permits under sub-section (8) of Section 88 of the said Act, since no mandamus can be issued directing the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act to act in contravention of the statutory provisions in the said Act. Paragraphs 58 to 63 of the said decision read thus; “58. A reading of the provisions under sub-section (8) of Section 88 of the MV Act, which deals with grant of special permit to any public service vehicle, would show that such a permit is intended for carrying a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract, express or implied, for the use of the vehicle as a whole without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract. Therefore, if the holder of a special permit can pick up individual passengers or few of them at the starting point and drop them at the last terminus of the route, it is virtually a stage carriage with corridor restriction, which will amount to contravention of permit conditions, attracting the penal provisions under Section 192A of the said Act, for using vehicle without permit. Therefore, the operation of contract carriages covered by permits granted under Section 74 of the MV Act, which are granted with special permits under Section 88(8) of the said Act, for transportation of pilgrims from Nilakkal to Pamba and vice versa will amount to contravention of permit conditions, attracting the penal provisions under Section 192A of the said Act, for using vehicle without permit, since it is virtually a stage carriage with corridor restriction. 59. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309] the Apex Court held that under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. 60. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [ (1977) 4 SCC 145 ] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. 61. In Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [ (2008) 2 SCC 280 ] the Apex Court held that, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed the principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in ’The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies’ by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. 62. In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [ (2011) 10 SCC 259 ] the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. 63. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. 63. As already noticed hereinbefore, the operation of contract carriages covered by permits granted under Section 74 of the MV Act, which are granted with special permits under Section 88(8) of the said Act, for transportation of pilgrims from Nilakkal to Pamba and vice versa will amount to contravention of permit conditions, attracting the penal provisions under Section 192A of the said Act, for using vehicle without permit, since it is virtually a stage carriage with corridor restrictions. Therefore, no writ of mandamus can be sought for, invoking the provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, commanding respondents 1 to 4 to permit the petitioner to manage and operate transportation of pilgrims from Nilakkal to Pamba and vice versa in contract carriages having valid permits under Section 74 of the MV Act, which are issued with special permits under sub-section (8) of Section 88 of the said Act, since no mandamus can be issued directing the authorities under the MV Act to act in contravention of the statutory provisions in the said Act. 11. By the order dated 13.12.2024 in DBP No.43 of 2024 and SSCR No.62 of 2024, this Court ordered that the parking grounds of Travancore Devaswom Board at Nilakkal, which is on the forest land leased out to the Travancore Devaswom Board for providing pilgrim facilities, cannot be utilised for contract carriage operations by any contract carriage operator, in between Nilakkal and Pamba. In the said order this Court noticed that the road from Chalakkayam to Pamba, which is on the forest land leased out to the Travancore Devaswom Board, is owned and maintained by the Board. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of that order read thus; “4. The 17 parking grounds at Nilakkal, which are intended for vehicles reaching Nilakkal, carrying Sabarimala pilgrims, are having a total capacity of 8,000 vehicles. The road from Chalakkayam to Pamba, which is on the forest land leased out to the Travancore Devaswom Board, is owned and managed by the Board. The entire land at Nilakkal where 17 parking grounds are provided, is also on the forest land leased out to the Travancore Devaswom Board, for providing pilgrim facilities. 5. The road from Chalakkayam to Pamba, which is on the forest land leased out to the Travancore Devaswom Board, is owned and managed by the Board. The entire land at Nilakkal where 17 parking grounds are provided, is also on the forest land leased out to the Travancore Devaswom Board, for providing pilgrim facilities. 5. In such circumstances, the parking lot at Nilakkal from Pamba-Triveni area cannot be utilized for contract carriage operations by any contract carriage operator, in between Nilakkal and Pamba. 6. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions from the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta, would submit that 10 contract carriages have already been booked since they were parked causing obstruction to the movement of pilgrims. Three contract carriages have already been taken into custody.” 12. By the order 08.01.2025 in DBP No.43 of 2024 and SSCR No.62 of 2024, this Court directed the District Collector, Pathanamthitta and the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta to take necessary steps to ensure that the directions contained in the order of this Court dated 13.12.2024 are complied with in letter and spirit by all concerned. By the said order, it was ordered that, in case, the parking capacity of 17 parking grounds at Nilakkal is full, the Police and the District Administration have to regulate the entry of vehicles to Nilakkal by ‘hold and release’ mechanism, in terms of the directions contained in the orders of this Court dated 12.11.2024 and 13.12.2024 in DBP No.43 of 2024 and SSCR No.62 of 2024. 13. Today, in SSCR No.79 of 2024 filed by the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala regarding crowd management and other aspects at Sabarimala during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season of 1200ME (2024-25), the Special Commissioner has filed an additional report dated 08.01.2025, producing therewith the minutes of the meeting held on 08.01.2025 at 5.30 p.m. at his Chambers. In the said meeting, a decision has been taken not to allow parking of vehicles at Pampa from 8.00 a.m. on 12.01.2025 to 2.00 p.m. on 15.01.2025. The said decision is one taken in the joint meeting attended by the officials from the District Administration, District Police and also the officials of the Travancore Devaswom Board. 14. In the said meeting, a decision has been taken not to allow parking of vehicles at Pampa from 8.00 a.m. on 12.01.2025 to 2.00 p.m. on 15.01.2025. The said decision is one taken in the joint meeting attended by the officials from the District Administration, District Police and also the officials of the Travancore Devaswom Board. 14. Crowd management and other aspects in Sabarimala and its vicinity, which is declared as a Special Security Zone under Section 83(1) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, to ensure a safe, secure and hassle-free pilgrimage, is under the control of Chief Police Co-ordinator [Additional Director General of Police (Police Head Quarters). In case the parking capacity of 17 parking grounds at Nilakkal is full, the Police and the District Administration have to regulate the entry of vehicles to Nilakkal by ‘hold and release’ mechanism, in terms of the directions contained in the orders of this Court. The parking grounds of Travancore Devaswom Board at Nilakkal, which is on the forest land leased out to the Travancore Devaswom Board for providing pilgrim facilities, cannot be utilised for contract carriage operations by any contract carriage operator, in between Nilakkal and Pamba. Moreover, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Viswa Hindu Parishad Kerala [2023:KER:33228] the members of the petitioner association, who are holders of contract carriage permits (Motor Cab Permits), cannot use their vehicles for transportation of pilgrims from Nilakkal to Pamba and vice versa, during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival seasons or Maasapoojas. Therefore, the petitioner is not legally entitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.