No Fundamental Right To Ply Auto Rickshaws In Cochin International Airport Premises Without Specific Permissions: High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that auto rickshaw drivers cannot claim any fundamental right to ply their vehicles within the premises of the Cochin International Airport Ltd (CIAL), without specific permissions. 

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman observed that, 

"Any right of the petitioners to ply their vehicles or to exercise their right of occupation is obviously not an absolute right to enter into any premises regardless of any restrictions whatsoever. All such rights, can, obviously be exercised only subject to such reasonable restrictions". 

The Court added in this light that CIAL can impose restrictions on entry into their premises for reasons of public interest and security, and the same could not be disputed. 

The petitioners herein were auto rickshaw drivers who had been issued with due permits for conducting contract carriage operations on all fit roads in Ernakulam District with parking place at Nedumbassery Village. It was the case of the petitioners that although taxi cars are permitted to operate within the premises of CIAL (1st respondent herein), auto rickshaws were not being permitted to pick up passengers from the said premises. Despite requests from the petitioners, the respondents had not responded to the same. It was thus contended by Advocates P.K. Ibrahim, Sreeji K.B., and Fathima Fidha, that the petitioners have a fundamental right to ply their auto rickshaws and the respondents could not interfere in the same. It was further contended that the petitioners were also suffering undue hardship because of the refusal of the respondents to permit auto rickshaws to pick up passengers from the arrival terminal of the airport. 

They thus prayed the Court to declare that the 1st respondent had no authority to obstruct Auto Rickshaws plying at Nedumbassery from picking up passengers from the place of arrival / departure station at the Airport, and also to issue a writ of mandamus to the Circle Inspector of Police (2nd Respondent herein) to afford adequate police protection to the petitioners or other auto rickshaw drivers plying at Nedumbassery in the event of any obstruction in picking up passengers. 

The respondents argued that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, since the 1st respondent does not answer the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution. It was further contended that premises of the 1st respondent is a restricted area and that the right of the petitioners to ply their auto rickshaws on the basis of contract carriage permits granted by the Motor Vehicle Authorities would not extend to entry into restricted areas without specific permission granted by the 1st respondent.

Additionally, in light of the earlier decision of the High Court in Girish G. v. State of Kerala [WP(C) No.7219/2014] dated January 10, 2020, it has been settled that auto rickshaws carrying passengers to the Airport shall be permitted to drop passengers at the terminals, but cannot park or remain in waiting within the Airport premises or to pick up any passengers from the Airport. It was thus submitted that the petitioners could not claim any fundamental right to operate their contract carriages within such areas without express permission being granted for such exercise. 

 The Court observed herein that, 

"All premises of airports are obviously restricted areas covered by the provisions of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, the Airports Authority of India (Management of Airports) Regulations and the instructions issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation where entry is regulated by special permission is clear from the pleadings of the petitioners themselves". 

The Court thus discerned that the contention of the petitioners that they have a fundamental right to ply their auto rickshaws within the premises of the 1st respondent even without specific permissions could not be accepted. 

While dismissing the petition, the Court added that, 

"The judgments relied on by the respondents would also make it amply clear that this Court has considered the restriction placed on the entry of vehicles into the premises of airports, be they operated by the Airports Authority of India or otherwise and had approved of such restrictions, since they are apparently in place with proper power and authorization". 

The respondents in the instant case were represented by Standing Counsel of CIAL Benny P. Thomas, Advocates Vinod Vallikappan, P. Benny Thomas, D. Prem Kamath, Tom Thomas, Abel Tom Benny, Kurian Oommen Therakath, and Jaikrishnan M. Pisharodi. Government Pleader T.K. Shajahan also appeared in the instant case. 

Case Title: Ratheesh P.K. & Anr v. Cochin International Airport Ltd & Ors. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 625

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment