AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The writ petition is filed with the prayers as follows:
(a) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the Respondents two to four to remove the vehicles parked in the public road surrounding the police station at Varkala holding that the parking of the vehicle on the public road is causing inconvenience to the passengers.
(b) to issue such other writ, direction to the Respondents to dispose of or remove the vehicles kept inside the Varkala police station and the surrounding public road remaining unclaimed without any valid title for the last six months.
The substance of the writ petition is that large number of vehicles seized by the police on the grounds of violation of various laws are parked both within the premises of the Varkala Police Station and also on the road in front of the police station causing a great deal of inconvenience to the residents of the locality. The writ petition is purported to have been filed in public interest.
When the matter came up earlier, we called upon the learned Government Pleader to ascertain as to whether the various allegations of congestion created by the parking of the vehicles seized by the police on the road are correct or not, the learned Government Pleader submitted that there is some truth in the allegation that some of the vehicles seized by the police are left parked on the street in view of the fact that there is no sufficient space available in the police station premises. He further submitted that necessary steps are being taken to get the vehicles disposed off in accordance with law. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the Petitioner is a practising lawyer who has an office in front of the police station.
The Petitioner never disclosed his personal interest in the matter. Confronted with this question the learned Counsel for the Petitioner pointed to a vague sentence in paragraph 4 of the writ petition which reads as follows:
Petitioner also finds it difficult to come to his office in his car as there is no space left in the road.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that there is sufficient disclosure of the interest of the Petitioner by virtue of the above extracted statement in the petition. We are of the opinion that the above extracted statement is too vague and is susceptible to many an interpretation. The Petitioner who is admittedly a practising lawyer, in our opinion, cannot be heard to say that the above statement would amount to sufficient disclosure of his personal interest in the matter.
Be that as it may. In view of the fact that the Petitioner has a personal grievance, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner cannot be permitted to seek any relief from this Court in the guise of public interest.
The writ petition is therefore dismissed at the admission stage.