O R D E R

The petitioner in the writ petition has come up with this petition seeking review of the judgment.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation.

3. The petitioner is running a restaurant within the limits of the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation (the Corporation). The restaurant of the petitioner is situated on the southern side of Mavoor road. During 2020, the Corporation has decided to reconstruct the public drains and footpaths on either side of Mavoor road. When the said work has commenced, the petitioner preferred a representation before the Corporation seeking orders for vehicular access to the land where the restaurant is situated through its entire road frontage, for once the reconstruction proposed is completed, it was apprehended that vehicular access will be possible only through the space earmarked for the same. It was stated by the petitioner in the writ petition that although a hearing was held on the said representation, the request of the petitioner was turned down by the Corporation in terms of Ext.P12 order. The writ petition was instituted, in the circumstances, challenging Ext.P12 order. The case of the petitioner is that the level of the footpath in front of the restaurant stands raised substantially after the work and the petitioner is given vehicular access only through a portion of the road frontage. It is also alleged by the petitioner that even before serving Ext.P12 order on the petitioner, the Corporation has completed the work proposed by them. The petitioner therefore sought directions to the Corporation to provide vehicular access through the entire road frontage of the land.

4. The stand taken by the Corporation in the statement filed in the matter was that the footpath is designed and meant to ensure safety of pedestrians and to enable them to move through either side of the road without any obstruction; that vehicular access is provided to the parking space in the premises of the petitioner; that the attempt of the petitioner is to make use of the open space in between the restaurant building and the road for parking of four wheelers; that sufficient space is not available between the restaurant building and the road for parking of four wheelers and that if the petitioner is permitted to make use of that area for parking, such parking would obstruct the free movement of pedestrians through the footpath. As regards the allegation of the petitioner that the work was completed even before the order on the representation was served on her, it is stated by the Corporation that Ext.P12 decision was communicated to the petitioner by e-mail on 17.08.2020 and it is thereafter that the work was completed.

5. This court found that the restaurant building of the petitioner is situated on the western extremity of the plot and the petitioner was provided parking space for her customers on the eastern side of the restaurant building having a width of 5.85 metres and that vehicular access having a width of 7 metres has been provided to the portion of the land of the petitioner earmarked for parking of vehicles. This court also found that the right of access of an adjoining owner from his land to the highway and vice versa is a private right; that the said private right of access is subject to the public right of passage, which is though a superior right, the same is subject to the private right of access to the highway available to the adjoining owner and he has to exercise that right without causing any obstruction to the right of passage available to the general public. This court also found that the aforesaid rights are not inconsistent and therefore where a footpath intervenes between the carriageway and the adjoining land, the owner of the land is entitled to access across the footpath to the carriageway for the reasonable enjoyment of his land; that the right of the owner of the land for access acr