JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is stated to be in possession and enjoyment of a property having an extent of 7.38 Ares (18¼ cents) covered by Ext.P1 Sale Deed No.3343 of 1987 dated 09.09.1987 of the Sub Registrar Office, North Paravoor, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 5 to stop unauthorised and illegal parking of autorikshaws on the side of Kuriapilly South-Machamthuruthu PWD Road, in front of the petitioner's premises covered by Ext.P1 and to shift it from there. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to provide him adequate police protection averting the unlawful activities of the members of the 6th respondent Autorickshaw Drivers Union, including the 7th respondent, by parking their autorikshaws in front of the petitioner's premises, covered by Ext.P1 and on the side of the PWD road.

2. On 22.07.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court issued notice before admission to respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3 and 5. The learned Standing Counsel took notice for the 4th respondent Grama Panchayat. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 6 and 7. This Court directed the petitioner to implead the Chairman of the Traffic Regulatory Authority of the 4th respondent Grama Panchayat as additional respondent.

3. By the order dated 02.03.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2020, the Chairman, Traffic Regulatory Committee, Vadakkekara Grama Panchayat was impleaded as the additional 8th respondent and the learned Standing Counsel took notice for the said respondent.

4. Along with the memo filed by the learned Government Pleader, the report of the 2nd respondent Station House Officer is placed on record, wherein it is stated that the matter regarding parking of autorickshaws in the area in question is now pending consideration before the additional 8th respondent Traffic Regulatory Committee.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and 5, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 4 and 8 and also the learned counsel for the 6th respondent. Despite service of notice, none appears for the 7th respondent.

6. In Noushad M. and Others v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (2) KHC 562], a Division Bench of this Court held that permitting parking of autorickshaws permanently in front of shop rooms on the side of Highway is an appropriation of private right of owners of shops and houses to have free access to Highways. Obstructing such private right is not justified. In the said decision the Division Bench was dealing with an unauthorised autorickshaws stand, which has not been approved by the Grama Panchayat or anybody else. In the said decision, arising out of a writ petition filed seeking police protection, this Court directed the Grama Panchayat to constitute Traffic Regulatory Committee in accordance with Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and to determine the location of the parking place for autorickshaws in consultation with the District Police Chief and the Regional Transport Authority. Until a decision is taken by the competent authority, this Court permitted five autorickshaws at a time being parked in the existing parking place to assist the general public, subject to any other decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority, in consultation with the local authority.

7. In Kottamom (Kottiyar Mangalam) Sri Darmasastha Temple Advisory Committee v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (5) KHC SN 27] this Court noticed that, a reading of the decision of the Division Bench in Noushad and also the decisions referred to therein would show that, the law laid down in those decisions in no way support the contention of the petitioner that no autorickshaw stand can be permitted to be established at any point the temple property touches the National Highway. As per clause