BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

R.P.NO. OF 2019

IN

W.P.(C) NO. 25385 OF 2019

Vijayan and others : Review Petitioner

Vijayan.S and others : Respondents

INDEX

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sl.No. Particulars Page Number
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

01. Synopsis

02. Memorandum of Review Petition

03. Annexure-A1 Judgment dated 03-10-2019 in

WP (c) No. 25385 of 2019

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 12th day of November 2019

Counsel for review petitioner

 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

Review Petition NO. OF 2019

IN

W.P.(C) NO. 25385 OF 2019

(Against the Judgment dated 03-10-2019 in WP (c) No. 25385 of 2019)

Review Petitioners/
Respondents 5 to 11 in the writ petition.

1. Vijayan, 40 years S/o Rajayyan Nadar residing at 1/70 Shubha Bhavan,

Kallimoodu, Mannamkonam P.O. Vellarada-695 125.

2. Das.N, 59 years S/o Neshayan Nadar D O residing at Nivas, Plangala Puthen

Veedu, Kudayal P.O.Thiruvananthapuram-695 505.

3. Bhuvanendran Nair aged 43 years, S/o Chandran residing at Cheruthalavilakam,

Panachmood P.O.Thiruvananthapuram-695 505.

4. Shibu, aged 39 years s/o Bhaskaranresiding at Plangalavila Veedu, Vellarada

P.O. Thiruvananthapuram-695 505.

5. Suresh Kumar aged 29 S/o Pushparaj, residing at Suresh Bhavan, Vellarada P.O.
Thiruvananthapuram-695 505.

6. Seydali, aged 43 s/o Maitheen Kannu,Vessarivilakam Veedu, Mangod P.O.629152

Respondents/
Petitioners 1 to 4 and Respondents 1 to 4 in Writ petition

1. Vijayan.S, Aged 59 Years S/O Late Sukumaran Nair, Proprietor, Karthika

Agencies, Panachamoodu P.O.Thiruvananthapuram-695 505.

2. Santhoshkumar R.S, Aged 57 Years S/O Robinsan,Adam Finance, P

Anachamoodu Branch, Panachamoodu P.O. Thiruvananthapuram -695 505.

3. Alan A, Aged 36 Years S/O Appu, Ara Freezing Point, Panachamoodu P.O.T
Hiruvananthapuram-695 505.

4. Rajendran S, Aged 46 Years S/O Sukumara Panicker, Cheruthalavilakam Veedu,

Panachamoodu P.O. Thiruvananthapuram-695 505

5. Vellarada Grama Panchayath, Rep By Its Secretary, Vellarada Grama Panchayath,

Panachamoodu P.O.Thiruvananthapuram-695 505.

6. Traffic Regulatory Authority, Rep By Its Chairman, President, Vellarada Grama

Panchayath, Panachamoodu P.O.Thiruvananthapuram-695 505

7. Regional Transport Officer (Joint), Parassala Sub Regional Transport Office,

Parassala P.O.Thiruvananthapuram-695 502.

8. Station House Officer, Vellarada Police Station, Vellarada

P.O.Thiruvananthapuram-695 503.
 Review Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Address for Service: - All notices and other processes on the petitioner and on the
respondents may be served at their respective addresses furnished above. Petitioners
may be served with such notices etc. at the address of their counsel- M/s. Legith T.
Kottakkal, Advocate, PKM Manzil, 2nd Floor, Flower Junction, T.D.Road, Kochi-35.

Statement of Facts

1. The review petitioners are arrayed as respondents 5 to 10 in the above writ

petition. The above writ petition is filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein alleging

un- authorized parking of vehicles owned by the review petitioners in front of

their shop rooms. It is respectfully submitted that the writ petition was filed

without disclosing all the material facts and particulars. The goods stand in

dispute commenced its functioning during late 1960’s and is functioning for more

than 40 years. The goods stand is in a prime spot in Vellarada panchayath which

is hardly 300 meters from the Kerala-Tamilnadu border.

2. It is respectfully submitted that by Judgment dated 03-10-2019 this Hon’ble

court has issued two directions. The true copy of the judgment dated 03-

10-2019 is produced herewith as Annexure A1 The operative part of the

judgment is as follows

“Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the 1st respondent

Grama Panchayath to immediately constitute a Traffic Regulatory

Committee, as required under law, so that the said Committee can

consider Ext.P3 without any further delay thereafter. This shall be

done by the 1st respondent, as expeditiously as is possible, but not

later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
 judgment; and the said Committee, on being constituted will

consider Ext.P3, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the

petitioners as well to respondents 5 to 10, within a period of one

month thereafter.

In the meanwhile, until the afore exercise is completed, the 4

the respondent-Station House Officer of Vellarada Police Station will

ensure that no vehicles are parked blocking the ingress and egress

to the petitioners' premises or in any manner causing them any

nuisance, and that if any complaint is preferred by them to such

effect the same shall be dealt with in terms of law, without any

delay.

This writ petition is thus ordered.”

3. It is respectfully submitted that the review petitioners are aggrieved by the

direction issued by this Hon’ble Court to the 4th respondent in writ petition,

thereby this Hon’ble Court directed the Station House Officer of Vellarada

Police Station to ensure that no vehicles are parked blocking the ingress

and egress to the writ petitioners premises or in any manner causing them

any nuisance. Based on this direction the 4th respondent in writ petition is not

permitting to park any of the vehicles owned by the petitioners in the auto stand.

4. It is respectfully submitted that road margin is having more than 5 meters of

space. The parking of pick up vehicles owned by the petitioners parked in the

road margin is not causing any disturbance to the general public. The field

survey sketch of field No.215 Block No.35 of Vellarada Village shows that
 the puramboke is abutting the road margin. Moreover the vehicles of the

petitioner is essential for the general public especially in a border town. The

ingress and egress to the shops of the writ petitioners are not blocked by the

petitioners. The 4th respondent in writ petition interpreted the Judgment of this

Hon’ble court as the parking is completely prohibited. The 4th respondent in writ

petition lost sight of the fact that what is prohibited is only the parking of

vehicles which obstructs the ingress and egress to the writ petitioner’s premises.

5. It is respectfully submitted that the road margin is meant for the general public

at large. The Writ petitioners are now using the road margin for their private

purposes. Big vehicles were parked in the road margin. The goods stand is in

existence for more than 50 years. No inconvenience is caused to the general

public or the writ petitioners by parking of the goods vehicle in the road margin.

Sufficient space is given to the general public and for ingress and egress of writ

petitioners.

6. The Grama panchayat yet to constitute a traffic regulatory authority as directed

by this honourable Court in the judgement dated 03-10-2019. The 4th respondent

is not permitting the vehicles of the petitioners to park in goods stand. The 4th

respondent in writ petition misinterpreted the judgment of this honourable Court

as total prohibition of the parking of vehicles. The Writ petitioners filed the Writ

petition for their personal benefit only.

7. It is respectfully submitted that the review petitioners received a notice from this

Hon’ble Court on 27-10-2019. The 5th the petitioner herein is LLB student

pursuing his legal studies in Law Academy, Thiruvananthapuram. The 5 th

petitioner and other petitioners received of the notice in copy of the Writ

petition consulted a lawyer at Thiruvananthapuram. The lawyer at

Thiruvananthapuram took some time to study the matter and to refer the matter

to a lawyer at Ernakulam. The petitioners herein took some time to engage a

 lawyer at Ernakulam meanwhile it was informed to the petitioners herein that the

Writ petition is disposed by this honourable Court by judgment dated 03-10-

2019. The absence of the petitioners herein was not deliberate. The petitioners

need to travel 40 km from their hometown to Thiruvananthapuram and then

they need to travel to Ernakulam. Unfortunately the petitioner’s herein is unable

to present before the Court on 03-10-2019 and the absence of the petitioners

may be pardoned.

8. On perusal of the judgment the petitioners believed that their grievances can be

redressed before the 3rd respondent in writ petition which will be constituted by

the 1st respondent in writ petition. The Traffic regulatory committee is yet to

constitute by the 1st respondent in writ petition. But the petitioners herein are

aggrieved by the direction given to the 4th respondent in writ petition. The relief

sought in the Writ petition is against 1st and 3rd respondent in writ petition. No

relief is sought against the 4th respondent in the Writ petition as well as against

the petitioners herein. The 4th respondent in writ petition and the Writ petitioners

are harassing the petitioners herein with respect to the parking in good stand.

The petitioners herein have no other income than the income from the goods

vehicles. It is respectfully submitted that the good stand dispute was in existence

for more than 40 years. There are no other available space convenient to the

general public also for parking the vehicles on by the petitioners. The petitioners

is not obstructing the ingress or egress to the Writ petitioners property.

9. Aggrieved by the judgment in the above writ petition review of the same is

sought for on the following:

 GROUNDS

A. The 4th respondent in writ petition interpreted the Judgment of this

Hon’ble court as the parking is completely prohibited in the premises. The

4th respondent lost sight of the fact that what is prohibited is only the

parking of vehicles which obstructs the ingress and egress to the writ

petitioner’s premises.

B. The petitioners win their bread from the income received from the goods

vehicle. The right to life of the petitioners is violated by the 4th respondent

by misinterpreting the Annexure A1 judgment. The 4th respondent is duty

bound to interpret the Annexure A1 judgment by respecting the rights of

the petitioners herein also.

C. The 4th respondent shall not harass the petitioners herein for parking the

vehicles without any obstruction to the shops owned by the writ

petitioners.

D. The Grama panchayat yet to constitute a traffic regulatory authority as

directed by this honourable Court in the judgment dated 03-10-2019.

E. The goods stand in dispute commenced its functioning during late 1960’s

and is functioning for more than 40 years. The goods stand is in a prime

spot in Vellarada panchayath which is hardly 300 meters from the Kerala

Tamilnadu border.

F. Field survey sketch of field No.215 Block No.35 of Vellarada Village

shows that the existing parking place of goods stand is puramboke.

G. The relief sought in the Writ petition is against 1st and 3rd respondent in

writ petition. No relief is sought against the 4th respondent in the Writ

petition as well as against the petitioners herein.

H. The 4th respondent in writ petition and the Writ petitioners are harassing

the petitioners herein with respect to the parking in good stand by

misinterpreting the Annexure A1.

 I. The review petitioners herein have no other income than the income from

the goods vehicles. It is respectfully submitted that the good stand

dispute was in existence for more than 40 years. Right to life under Article

21 of Constitution of India is violated if the vehicles of the petitoners are

not parked in the goods stand.

J. The Annexure A1 judgment is misinterpreted by the 4th respondent and is

harassing the petitioners.

K. The Panchayat is yet to comply with the directions of the Annexure A1.

The petitioners are remediless now.

In the above circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court

may be pleased to review the judgment in W.P.(C) 25385/2019.

Court Fee of is paid herewith.

Dated this the 12th day of November 2019

Counsel for review petitioner.

 Presented on:

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

Review Petition NO. OF 2019

IN

W.P.(C) NO. 25385 OF 2019

(Against the Judgment dated 03-10-2019 in WP (c) No. 25385 of 2019)

Vijayan and others : Review Petitioners/

Respondents 5 to 10

Vijayan S and others : Respondents/

Petitioners & Respondents
1 to 4

Review Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1

of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legith T Kottakkal (L-221)

Counsel for review petitioner
 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

R.P.NO. OF 2014
IN
W.P.(C) NO. 6389 OF 2014

Surendran : Review Petitioner

Vijayamohan P. and others : Respondents

SYNOPSIS

1. Writ petition is filed by some shop owners against the alleged un-authorized
parking of the vehicles in goods stand by the petitioners herein. The goods stans
is in existence for more than 40 years. Review petitioner are owners of goods
vehicle and are respondents 5 to 11 in writ petition. The writ petition was
allowed by Annexure A1 judgment. By Annexure A1 judgment the Hon’ble Court
issued two directions
a. Direction to Panchayat
to immediately constitute a Traffic Regulatory Committee, and to consider Ext.P3
without any further delay thereafter
b. Direction to Station House Officer of Vellarada Police
Station House Officer of Vellarada Police Station shall ensure that no vehicles are
parked blocking the ingress and egress to the petitioners' premises or in any
manner causing them any nuisance.
2. The 4th respondent interpreted the Annexure A1 judgment as complete
prohibition of parking the goods vehicles. The 4th respondent is not even
permitting the parking of goods vehicles which is parked without any obstruction
to the shops of the writ petitioners.
3. The 4th respondent is harassing the petitioners. The panchayat is yet to
constitute a Traffic Regulatory Committee as directed by Annexure A1.
4. Hence this review petition.
Dated this the 12th day of November 2019

Counsel for review petitioner