Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is a public law remedy not available for the resolution of private disputes involving private rights in non-public spaces.

JUDGMENT :

PREETA A.K., J.

1. This Writ Appeal is filed assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge decided against the exercise of his discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the reliefs sought for are purely private in nature and are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Inda. The short facts relevant for the determination of the lis are as follows:

The appellant is a tenant of shop room Nos. 9/626 and 9/632 of Kottarakkara Municipality wherein he is running an electronic showroom and service centre. The 7^th respondent is also a tenant in the same building and according to the appellant, the 7^th respondent who is an Architect and Structural Engineer is illegally parking his vehicle in such a manner that the frontage of appellant’s showroom is completely covered and access to his shop room is partially blocked. The writ Petition was filed by the appellant seeking a declaration that the unauthorised parking of vehicles in front of his shop room, obstructing his private right as illegal and seeking police protection for carrying out the business in the petitioner’s shop room by stopping illegal parking of vehicles by the 7^th respondent, his staff and customers in front of the shop.

2. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that both the appellant as well as the 7^th respondent are tenants of the same landlady held that both have a right to park their vehicles in front or near the building wherever such area is earmarked and hence parking of vehicles by the 7^th respondent could not be seen as illegal vis-a-vis the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition was therefore dismissed on the ground that enforcement of access to the petitioner’s shop room being a private right has to be through proceedings in a civil court.

3. In the appeal before us, the learned counsel for the appellant urged that the learned Single Judge failed to apply the dictum in Noushad M. v. State of Kerala , 2019 (2) KHC 562 and that the right of the appellant is backed by the statutory provision under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder and that Kottarakkara Municipality has a statutory duty to regulate public spaces and prevent obstruction and nuisance.

4. We have considered the contentions raised by the appellant and have perused the pleadings in the appeal and gone through the precedents cited. Admittedly, both the appellant as well as the 7^th respondent are tenants in the same building. Thus, both have similar rights to use the space available for parking vehicles in the premises of the building subject to the contract entered into between the tenant and landlady. The premises of the building cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as a public space as the same is only a private space accessed by public in the ordinary course of their business. So considered, the provisions regarding the Motor Vehicles Act or the duty of the statutory authorities to regulate public places does not have any application to the facts of the case. It is also pertinent to note that the judgment relied on by the appellant pertains to regulation of parking in public spaces and as such the same is not applicable to the facts of the case. Except for the plea of inconvenience caused by the parking of vehicles by the 7^th respondent, the appellant does not have a case that a law and order situation prevails so as to seek the remedy of police protection. Thus said, the grievance of the appellant regarding parking of vehicles by the 7^th respondent in front of his shop rooms does not come within the purview of a public law remedy.

5. It is trite that a writ of mandam