N. Anilkumar, J.

The question arising for consideration in this case is as to whether the owner in possession of a shop-room adjoining the highway has a right to go upon the highway from any point from his shop room, especially when there is a public pathway; and if that right is obstructed by anyone, the owner in possession of the shoproom abutting the highway is entitled to maintain an action for the injury, no matter whether the obstruction does or does not constitute a public nuisance.

2. The petitioner has been running a jewellery shop under the name and style 'Chinchilam Jewellers' for the last more than four years at Odanavattom Junction by the side of Kottarakkara Ayur Road in Kollam District. The said jewellery shop has been functioning in a building bearing Door No.XVI/169 and 170 of Veliyam Grama Panchyath as per Ext.Pl licence issued in accordance with rules. Apart from the petitioner, there are two employees in the aforesaid shop room and the annual average income from sales per day is Rupees One Lakh. Feeling aggrieved by the unauthorised parking of taxi cabs in front of the jewellery shop of the petitioner virtually blocking free ingress and egress to the shop room by respondents 5,6 and others, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 complaint before the first respondent seeking police protection. The inaction on the part of the first respondent to render adequate police protection for carrying out the business in the petitioner's shop is arbitrary and illegal. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to give adequate and effective police protection for carrying out the business in the petitioner's shop viz "Chinchilam Jewellers" at Odanavattom Junction of Veliyam Panchayath stopping the illegal parking of vehicles by respondents 5, 6 and others and also the nuisance which are being committed in front of the petitioner's shop room.

(ii) issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to give adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner and his staffs at the shop "Chinchilam Jewellers" which is being rim by the petitioner.

(iii) issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the first respondent to consider Ext.PS complaint and take action in accordance with law."

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. P.P. Thajudeen, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 4, Sri. M.R. Sasith, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri. N.P. Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the party respondents contended that the particular road on which the parking complained of has been constructed as a public highway being Kottarakkara Ayur Road in Kollam District and no person has exclusive right to claim right over such a highway under any circumstance. It is further contended that no right of frontage can be claimed by the petitioner as of right and the parking of autorickshaws and taxies on the side of the public road do not constitute a nuisance and the petitioner has no right to claim independent right over the public road. It is further contended that assuming for arguments sake that the parking is a nuisance, the remedy of the authorities is to abate the nuisance in accordance with law and not by way of mandamus directing to issue necessary police protection to abate the nuisance. Learned counsel for the party respondents vehemently argued that in the case of a public road, the public are entitled to use the entire width of the public road as the highway and are not confined to the part which may be tarred or kept vacant in order for the convenient use of carriages and foot passengers.

5. As against this, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that