The main legal point established in the judgment is that a public sector Corporation has the authority to levy a parking fee for its premises, as long as it is not against public policy and is necessary for security reasons.

M. Ramachandran, J.

Mr. Jaju Babu, advocate for the petitioners, has raised an issue of general importance in the above Original Petition. It concerns about the restrictions that had been brought about by a public sector Corporation in the matter of parking of vehicles of third parties in its premises. The restriction is brought about by introducing parking fee at notified rates. The submission is that such conduct is illegal and interferes with the rights of citizens.

2. The first respondent-Kerala Tourism Development Corporation (KTDC) -owns a shopping complex in the Marine Drive of Cochin. The principal occupant of the building is the State Bank of India and it is stated that there are 34 shops functioning in the ground floor of the building. The building and the surrounding area owned by the Corporation, measures about one acre and twenty cents. It is also one of the most busy areas in the city. On three sides of the building there is sufficient space for parking about 50 vehicles at a time.

3. The building was constructed some time in 1979 and the petitioners submit that till such time Ext. P3 had been issued there was no parking fee levied from any persons for using the area. The first petitioner is a citizen of Cochin and he holds an account in the branch of State Bank of India housed in the premises. The second petitioner is an Association of Shop owners in the shopping complex and the third petitioner is one of the occupants of the shops that has been let out by the first respondent-Corporation. The petitioners have espoused their individual causes as also the cause of the general public, and contend that the proceedings of the first respondent whereunder there was proposal to levy parking fee was altogether illegal and without jurisdiction. The first petitioner submits that his rights for banking transactions is interfered with, as even for a short halt, he will have to pay a heavy fee. As far as the others, the contention appears to be that the customers will keep off the place because of the unfriendly attitude, and they will have to languish with lean patronage, which will affect their very existence.

4. The first respondent had filed a counter affidavit and they had produced Ext. R2(a), the tender notification inviting tenders for collecting parking fee. Ext. R2(b) is an agreement that has been executed by the successful tenderer, for a period of one year from 4.8.2000. The rate of fee prescribed is for a duration of three hours period and the fee payable was Rs. 21- for two wheelers; Rs.3/- for three wheelers, Rs. 5/- for car, Rs. 10/- for light vehicles and Rs. 20/- for heavy vehicles. Double the amount has to be paid for parking the vehicles beyond three hours.

5. The petitioners have invited the attention of this Court generally to the inconvenience faced by the public in the matter of parking of vehicles in the city. As a customer of the third respondent-Bank, the first petitioner feels that the introduction of parking fee was illogical. The second and third petitioners also submit that it is not in the larger interest of the Corporation itself.

6 1n order to project the attack on the basis of legal contentions, counsel for the petitioners, also had invited my attention to the provisions of the Kerala Building Rules as also the Kerala Municipal Building Rules. He had also referred to certain decisions in support of his contention that the demand brought about, evidenced by Ext. P3 was unsustainable.

7. The argument of the petitioners is that it is a statutory duty of the respondent-corporation to provide for parking facility in the premises. This had been provided and this facility had been continuously used by the general public, including the shop owners. It is submitted that a change in the system had been brought about with ulterior intention and the 6th respondent had been inducted surreptitiously and as a matter of fact the shop owners and the customers were being harassed. He referred to R.20 of