The main legal point established in the judgment is that the private right of access to a highway co-exists with the public right of way, and authorities may only erect obstructions for public interest, not for the private interests of individuals.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

An interference with the private right of an owner of land adjoining the national highway has given rise to this Petition. Petitioner is the proprietor of an engineering workshop situated on the side of the national highway. He has been conducting business for the last 30 years. He is mainly engaged in the manufacture of Iron Gate, grill, etc. Workshop has got a main road frontage of 35 feet facing the highway. Raw materials are brought in autorikshaws, hand carts, tempo, van, etc. and the finished products such as gate, grill, etc., are removed from the workshop in those vehicles.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the unauthorised parking of taxi cars in front of his workshop and on the side of the national highway, causing obstruction to his business. He and his customers are unable to bring vehicles in front of the workshop to load and unload materials. Petitioner submits due to obstruction he has to make a detour to reach his premises and it causes considerable inconvenience. Petitioner submits he has got a fundamental right to do business guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India without any obstruction to his private right or access to the highway. To conduct business, he should have direct access to the main road. Any impediment to his direct access to the highway, otherwise than for a public interest, is unauthorised and illegal. Police authorities have put up 'no parking' board on the side of the national highway in front of the petitioner's shop earlier. However, the same was unauthorisedly removed and about 15 taxies are parked round the Clock in front of his workshop, which adversely affects his private right of entry to the highway. He has, therefore, approached this Court seeking a, direction to the police authorities not to allow taxi cars to be permanently parked in front of his workshop, invading his private right of entry to the highway.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. Stand of the second respondent is that parking of vehicles in front of the petitioner's workshop is no hindrance to the traffic. It is stated only 15 taxi cars are parked in the place in question. It is their case that petitioner can use a side road without any hindrance. Second respondent submits that petitioner cannot have any legal right seeking removal of taxi cars from the highway.

4. I heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. Petitioner just like taxi owners are carrying on his business of running a workshop. In other words, both the petitioner and taxi drivers have a fundamental right to carry on their trade or occupation under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Petitioner is carrying on his business, trade or occupation on the side of the highway without causing any obstruction to the national highway. Taxi drivers are equally justified in carrying on their avocation plying the vehicles using highway without obstructing the petitioner's right to have access to the national highway. There is no law or regulation, which authorises the traffic police to allow taxi cars to be permanently parked on the side of the national highway in exercise of their fundamental right to carry on their business, trade or occupation.

5. It is stated in Smith's Leading Cases, Vol. II, page 172 (13th edition) that an owner of lands adjourning a highway is entitled to access to the highway at all points where his land adjoins the highway, whether or not the soil of the highway be his. The position in England is also highlighted in Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 21,

"Paragraph 120 (4th edition) as follows:

"An owner of land adjoining a highway is entitled to access to that highway at any point at which his land actually touches it.

The right of access of an adjoining owner from his premises to the highway and vice versa is a private right and is distinct from his right to use the highway as soon as he is upon it, which (at any rate if the soil of the