JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that in an item of property owned by him and situated in the heart of Kollam City, he has constructed a Shopping Mall by name “Holy Star Shopping Mall”. The said mall is facing the Vadayattukotta-Chinnakkada road which in turn leads to the Main Road, Kollam where the main business establishments are situated. The road in front of the mall is having a width of about 4 meters and is quite busy during day time. For enabling parking of vehicles of customers and tenants and also to facilitate easy vehicular movement through the adjacent road, at the time of construction itself, the petitioner had left out space having a width of 3 meters. His grievance is that taxi and private vehicles are being indiscriminately parked in front of his establishment. The petitioner asserts that the area in front of his mall has not been earmarked as an authorised parking area. Faced with the above difficulties, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 complaint before the 4th respondent, which authority has been constituted under Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act. According to the petitioner, a duty is cast upon the 4th respondent to regulate the traffic and fix up the parking area so that there will not be any hindrance to the free ingress and egress into the business establishment run by the petitioner. He would also assert that parking of vehicles on the main roads is expressly prohibited under Rule 15(2)(4) of the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989 r/w. Section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner would also point out that under Rule 344 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the location for parking of vehicles is to be determined by the 3rd respondent in consultation with the 1st respondent and other authorities. In the said circumstances, the petitioner is stated to have lodged Ext.P6 complaint before the 3rd respondent. However, no action was taken. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the unauthorised parking of vehicles in front of the business establishment of the petitioner and to give specific directions to park the vehicles in the authorised area earmarked for the parking of vehicles. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P3 to P6 complaints filed by the petitioner in an expeditious time frame.

2. As directed by this Court, a statement has been filed by the 1st respondent. In paragraph No.2 of the statement, it is stated as follows:

“2. It is submitted that petitioner’s shopping mall situated in Thamarakulam division of Kollam Corporation and parking of vehicles is not allowed in the said area. The said place is not a parking area. The vehicles are parking unauthorisedly in front of the shopping mall of the petitioner. Decisions are taken by Town and country planning department, Kerala Police Department, National Highway, Public Works Department, Motor Vehicles Department and Municipal Corporation for allotting separate parking area in Kollam corporation.”

3. Sri.Saju J. Panikar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the statement filed by the 1st respondent, the respondents are bound to initiate appropriate action against those persons who park the vehicles in front of the establishment of the petitioner unauthorisedly. He would point out that this Court in Mathew P.D v. State of Kerala and Others [2019 (5) KHC 242] had occasion to consider the relevant provisions of law and to issue specific directions. He submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if directions are issued to the 4th respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioner in the light of Mathew P.D. (supra) and take appropriate action.

4. I have heard the learned Government Pleader who appears for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri. M.K.Chandramohan Das, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.

5. From the statement filed by the 1st responde