IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
Roshy J. Pallan, S/o. Late P.J. Joseph – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Its Secretary, Home Department and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 34969 Of 2022
Decided On : 26-03-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : P.K. Ravisankar
For the Respondents : K.A. Mohamed Haris, D.G. Vipin, P.T. Abhilash.
Other Present : GP- Nima Jacob.
(A) Kerala Municipality Act - Section 472 - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 117 - Writ petition seeking removal of illegal parking obstructing access to property - Petitioner contended that unauthorized parking by respondents blocked ingress and egress to the building - Respondents claimed right to park on public road - Court held that respondents had no right to park as the area was not designated as a parking area, reaffirming the right of property owners to access the road. (Paras 7, 10, 11)
(B) Right of Access - The court emphasized that property owners have a right of access to the highway at all points, which cannot be obstructed by unauthorized parking. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, co-owner of a building, sought relief against unauthorized parking of autorickshaws by respondents, which blocked access to the building. Respondents claimed the area was public and they had a right to park.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the area was not designated as a parking area, thus respondents had no right to park there.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the parking by respondents and the right of the petitioner to access the road.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that unauthorized parking obstructing access to property is illegal, and property owners have a right to access the road.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, order or direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to provide adequate, necessary and sufficient protection by removing the illegal parking of Autorickshaws by the respondents 6 to 9 who are blocking access to the properties of the petitioner; and (ia) may be pleased to dispense with filing of translation of vernacular documents;
(ii) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is the co-owner of a building by name “Joseph Plaza” situated in Thammanam Junction. The building has frontages on the eastern side of Palarivattom Road and on the northern side of Thammanam–Pullepady road. Ground floor of the building consists of various shop rooms which are let out to tenants who are doing business therein. First floor portion is let out to M/s.National Insurance Company Limited and to M/s.Capitol Saloon. Initially few Autorickshaws used to park on the eastern side of the building without causing any obstruction to the ingress and egress to the shop rooms on the eastern side. While so on 15.9.2022 few Autorickshaw drivers under the leadership of respondents 7 to 9 started to park Autorickshaws on the northern side of the building completely blocking the entry and exit to the shop rooms on the northern side of the building. They are parking the Autorickshaws on the tarred portion of the road. The staircase leading to the first floor where the Branch of the National Insurance Company is functioning is also blocked because of the parking of the autorickshaws. Because of the parking of the autorickshaws as stated above, vehicular access to the shop rooms is completely lost. It is also submitted that before parking as stated above, the respondents 7 to 9 marked “NO PARKING” on the tarred portion of the road. Though the petitioner requested them not to park autorickshaws on the northern side of the building, they refused to do so. Ext.P3 photograph shows the manner in which autorickshaws are parked on the northern side of the building and also the marking of “no parking” on the tarred portion of the road. In view of the obstruction to the ingress and egress created by the parking of the autorickshaws, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 complaint. Further complaints are preferred as Exts.P6, P7 and P8. Petitioner submits that no parking space is notified under the Motor Vehicles Act , Kerala Municipality Act or under the Kerala Police Act, 2011 in front of the building of the petitioner. Petitioner contend that the parking is completely illegal and caused serious prejudice to the petitioner as well as the tenants of the building.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 6 to 9 contending that the above writ petition has been field suppressing many of the factual aspects. The respondents had never blocked the ingress and egress of the building owned by the petitioner. It is further contended that the 7th respondent has no connection with the issue involved and his only connection is that he is the son of an auto driver. The respondents are the owners/drivers of the autorikshaw and the meager income received from driving the autorickshaw is their only source of income. It is contended that the tarred portion of the road shown in Ext.P3 photograph is not owned by the petitioner and it is owned by the Cochin Corporation. As there was traffic block, the 10th respondent Corporation decided to widen and develop the Thammanam Junction and an amount of Rs.2 Crore was sanctioned by the Cochin Corporation. By utilizing that amount the disputed portion of property was acquired by the 10th respondent Municipal Corporation for widening the road. This resulted in vacant place at the Thammanam Junction and as the continuation of the road is blocked
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.