The petitioner in W.P.(C). 7258 of 2014 is the owner of a building which has been rented out for various business purposes; the ingress and egress to which is said to be seriously hampered by the parking of autorikshaws. The petitioner's building before which the alleged objectionable parking of autorikshaws is carried on, is on the Mannampetta-Kallur road near Vaidyasala Junction of Mannampetta. The petitioner has produced Ext.P2 photographs to indicate that the road on which the autorikshaws are parked, is a narrow one which does not facilitate free movement of vehicles and also hampers the ingress and egress into the adjacent building. 2. The respondent Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the respondent Panchayat had decided to remove the aurorikshaw stand from Mannampetta Vaidyasalappadi and decided to shift the same to Vattathara - Mannampetta road. However, the respondent Panchayat does not implement the said decision fearing the same would go against Ext.R3(a) judgment.
3. Ext.R3(a) judgment was passed in a writ petition filed by auto taxis (Tata Magic Iris) owners/drivers claiming that their vehicles also should be permitted to park in the autorikshaw stand. A Division Bench of this Court noticed that, it is not for the autorikshaw owners/drivers or the auto taxi owners/driers to decide on the place of parking or as to who should be permitted to park in a specified area.
The finding was that, since there is an auto stand in existence near the Vaidyasala Junction, the auto taxis should also be permitted to be parked along with the autorikshaws. Necessary directions were issued to the police to grant police protection for such parking. However, the question of whether both type of vehicles could be parked at the same place was directed to be decided in the writ petition filed by the autorikshaw drivers which also is posted today.
4. Rule 344 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, enjoin the RTA to prescribe parking places which has to be done after consultation with the Local Self Government Institution. The RTA has to take into account inter alia the density of traffic as also the space available and the hardship faced by the adjacent shop owners, before a decision is taken in that respect.
5. In the present case, the issue is only with respect to the parking of autorikshaws and auto taxis which, the Local Self Government Institution admits, is now being parked in Kallur-Mannampetta road where there is no authorized parking as such. In such circumstances, it is only proper that the RTA, Thrissur consider the same and decide upon the parking place after consultation with the Local Self Government Institution. The RTA, Thrissur, whose Secretary is impleaded as the 1st respondent herein, is suo motu impleaded as the additional 6th respondent so as to facilitate compliance of the aforesaid directions. (The Registry shall carry out the impleadment). The 1st respondent shall immediately place a certified copy of this judgment before the RTA for consideration. The petitioner shall move an application in which notice shall be issued to additional 4th and 5th respondents as also the Mannampeta Vydyasala Auto Workers Union C.I.T.U, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C).26799 of 2013 and the party respondents therein who are auto taxi owners/drivers.
6. W.P.(C).26799 of 2013 is filed regarding an inter se dispute between the auto taxis and autorikshaws. Two types of vehicles have now been introduced but however with the same fare. None can contend that they have a right over and above that of the other to ply such vehicles in an area. If valid permits have been issued by the RTA, then necessarily both are entitled to ply vehicles and a parking space specified for one, shall be available to the other also, provided the permit of the individual vehicle incorporates the parking space; with respect to that vehicle. The relief claimed by the petitioners in W.P.(C).26799 of 2013 cannot definitely be allowed.
Hence, W.P.(C).26799 of 2013 would stand dismissed and W.P.(C).7258 of 2014 would stand disposed of. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//