Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Satheesh Kumar Vs. the Rural Sp

Satheesh Kumar vs The Rural Sp

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 26, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1098648

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Satheesh Kumar

Respondent

The Rural Sp

Excerpt

.....2013 judgment s.siri jagan, j.: the petitioner owns a taxi and he is a driver by profession. he wants to eke out his livelihood by running the taxi on hire. the petitioner complains that on account of enmity, respondents 4 and 5 are not permitting the petitioner to park the taxi at upasana junction taxi stand at kovalam. the petitioner sought police help. the police did not oblige him. that is why, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: "a) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 and 6 to provide adequate protection to the life of the petitioner and provide adequate protection to run his taxi car. b) to direct respondents 1 to 3 to take action pursuant to ext.p5.2. respondents 4 and 5 appear through counsel and submit that they will not in any way obstruct the petitioner parking his taxi in the upasana junction taxi stand and operating w.p.c.25833/13 - :2. :- the same from that taxi stand. this is recorded. if the taxi stand at upasana junction is an authorised taxi stand, respondents 2 and 3 shall give protection to the petitioner for parking the taxi at upasana junction taxi stand and operating the same from that stand without any interference from respondents 4 and 5. but we make it clear that our intention in issuing the above direction is not to recognise the said taxi stand as an authorised one and if the same is not an authorised one, the police is not only bound to give protection, but also bound to see that the stand is removed. the writ petition is disposed of as above. sd/- s.siri jagan, judge sd/- sdk+ k.ramakrishnan, judge ///true copy/// p.a. to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN TUESDAY,THE26H DAYOF NOVEMBER20135TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 WP(C).No. 25833 of 2013 (D) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------------- SATHEESHKUMAR, AGED32EARS S/O.SOMAN, SATHEESH COTTAGE, THOZHICHAL AZHAKULAM, VIZHINJAM NOW RESIDING AT MULLUCADU PUNNAPURAM, KOTUKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.SRI.SYAMJ SAM RESPONDENTS : ---------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL S.P.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695521.

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOVALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695526.

4. BINU, AGED39YEARS B/208, AMBEDKAR GRAMAM RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION, (AGRA) VENGANNORE VILLAGE, VENGANOOR P.O, NEYYATTINKARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 526 (SECRETARY,CITU TAXI STAND, UPASANA UNIT, KOVALAM) 5. LALAN,, AGED30YEARS PULININNA VILAKAM, THOZHICHAL, KOVALAM, P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (SECRETARY BMS, TAXI STAND, UPASANAUNIT, KOVALAM) 695 526.

6. RTO, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695121. R4 & 5 BY ADV.SRI.C.K.MOHANAN R1 TO R3 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2611-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25833 of 2013 (D) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE DATED6/11/2009 OF PETITIONER. EXT.P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENSE DATED18/10/2012 OF PETITIONER EXT.P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY INTUC (DRIVERS CONGRESS) EXT.P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S VEHICLE. EXT.P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO SAID THE RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.ATO JUDGE AV S.SIRI JAGAN & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

================== W.P.(C).No. 25833 of 2013 ================== Dated this the 26th day of November, 2013

JUDGMENT

S.Siri Jagan, J.: The petitioner owns a taxi and he is a driver by profession. He wants to eke out his livelihood by running the taxi on hire. The petitioner complains that on account of enmity, respondents 4 and 5 are not permitting the petitioner to park the taxi at Upasana junction taxi stand at Kovalam. The petitioner sought police help. The police did not oblige him. That is why, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: "A) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 and 6 to provide adequate protection to the life of the petitioner and provide adequate protection to run his taxi car. B) to direct respondents 1 to 3 to take action pursuant to Ext.P5.

2. Respondents 4 and 5 appear through counsel and submit that they will not in any way obstruct the petitioner parking his taxi in the Upasana junction taxi stand and operating w.p.c.25833/13 - :

2. :- the same from that taxi stand. This is recorded. If the taxi stand at Upasana junction is an authorised taxi stand, respondents 2 and 3 shall give protection to the petitioner for parking the taxi at Upasana junction taxi stand and operating the same from that stand without any interference from respondents 4 and 5. But we make it clear that our intention in issuing the above direction is not to recognise the said taxi stand as an authorised one and if the same is not an authorised one, the police is not only bound to give protection, but also bound to see that the stand is removed. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Sd/- sdk+ K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial