Bureaucratic inaction hindering business operations violates Article 19(1)(g) rights.

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed seeking a mandamus against the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 15.11.2016 and 05.02.2019 as per Annexures-D and F respectively and by considering the representations take action to remove all vehicles parking in front of the commercial building owned by the petitioner.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/Gram Panchayat.

3. On a meticulous examination of the material placed on record, it is manifest that the petitioner's commercial property is situated abutting the State Highway, and it is not in dispute that the structure in question is a commercial building housing various business establishments. The petitioner, being the lawful owner and occupant of the said commercial premises, is engaged in running legitimate business activities and facilitating such activities for other tenants operating within the building. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the rampant and unauthorized parking of auto-rickshaws directly in front of the commercial complex, which has resulted in serious obstruction to ingress and egress of customers and clients visiting the petitioner's business premises. The obstruction has adversely affected the petitioner’s ability to carry on business in a peaceful and effective manner, thereby infringing the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India , which assures to every citizen the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.

4. It is pertinent to note that the right to trade or carry on business is not an empty formality but an enforceable fundamental right, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inSodan Singh vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee , [(1989) 4 SCC 155], wherein it was held that any unreasonable restriction on access to business premises, including denial of space or obstruction, constitutes an infringement of the right under Article 19(1)(g). Similarly, in Bhanwar Lal vs. Rajasthan Board for Prevention and Control of Pollution , [AIR 1990 Raj 50], it was reiterated that obstruction to lawful business due to inaction of statutory authorities is amenable to judicial review.

5. The petitioner, therefore, was constrained to submit detailed representations to the respondent- Panchayat Development Officer (PDO), Madanthyar Panchayat, on earlier occasions, first in 2016 and again in 2019, specifically requesting the authorities to regulate and prevent unauthorized parking of auto-rickshaws in front of the commercial complex. Despite the lapse of considerable time and repeated requests, the records clearly demonstrate a palpable inaction and indifference on the part of the PDO, who has failed to take any meaningful steps to redress the legitimate grievances of the petitioner. The inaction on the part of the statutory authority, despite being put on notice through formal representations, not only reflects administrative apathy but also tantamounts to a continuing violation of the petitioner's constitutional and legal rights.

6. In the course of the proceedings, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Panchayat has submitted that the representations of the petitioner will now be duly considered and that appropriate action will be initiated in accordance with law, provided a reasonable time is granted. This assurance, albeit belated, is recorded. However, it is imperative to emphasize that the right to carry on trade or business cannot be rendered illusory by bureaucratic inaction or administrative indifference, especially when the grievance pertains to physical obstruction affecting business operations.

7. Reco