Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10532
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
CHALAKUDY MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/6294/2020
R1,R3-R5 SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN SR.G.P.R2 & R9 SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR R2 & R9 SRI.P.C.GOPINATH R2 & R9 SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR R2 & R9 SHRI.ASIF N R6-R8 SRI.P.JINISH PAUL
The case establishes the critical need for regulatory compliance in public parking decisions to prevent obstruction and maintain traffic order.
Headnote:
Parking - Autorikshaw Regulation - Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 - Sections 22(2)(d), 22(2)(i) - The court upheld the interpretation of parking regulations and directed the Traffic Regulatory Committee to reconsider parking decisions to prevent obstruction and ensure compliance with the Motor Vehicles regulations.
Fact of the Case:
The Chalakudy Merchants Association filed a writ petition to quash an order allowing autorikshaw parking that obstructed shop access. They claimed violations of parking regulations, stating more autorikshaws were parked than permitted.
Issues: Whether the Traffic Regulatory Committee's order allowing autorikshaw parking violated the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations concerning obstruction of shop access and parking near intersections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations while allocating parking spaces, reflecting the importance of regulating public parking to avoid obstruction to businesses and traffic.
Final Decision: The Traffic Regulatory Committee must reconsider parking regulations to avoid obstructions.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of October, 2021 The Chalakudy Merchants Association and its President have filed this writ petition on behalf of the members of the Association seeking to quash Ext.P7 and to direct respondents 2 and 9 to shift the autorikshaw parking in front of the St.Mary's Church View Road, South Junction, Chalakudy to such place which is not causing obstruction to ingress and egress to the shops or is causing any other traffic congestion in the area, within a time fixed by this Court.
2. The petitioners submit that the members of the Merchants Association are running shops paying rent in tenanted premises. Members of respondents 6 to 8 Trade Unions are parking their autorikshaws in front of the shops in such a manner blocking the ingress and egress to the shops. Autorikshaws are parked indiscriminately. The road is maintained by the PWD. The road is intended for vehicles and pedestrians. Parking of autorikshaws is causing nuisance not only to the shop owners but also to the general public.
3. The petitioners state that the Traffic Regulatory Authority in Chalakudy Municipality has issued Ext.P7 order. In Ext.P7 order, 11 autorikshaws are permitted to be parked on the PWD road. Though the decision is to permit only 11 autorikshaws, the petitioners contend that more than 11 autorikshaws are parked at any point of time and those autorikshaws are parked right in front of the shops run by the members of the petitioner. This cannot be permitted. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the decision in Ext.P7 is without adverting to the rules and regulations framed under the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Regulation 22 (2)(d) of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 prohibits stopping and parking of vehicles before or after an intersection or a junction upto a distance of 50 mts. from the edge of the intersection or junction. Ext.R6(a) linear sketch of the Palli Road would show that some of the parking place earmarked would offend Regulation 22 (2)(d). The counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that under Regulation 22(2)(i), vehicles shall not be parked in front of the entrance or exit of a property. Therefore no autorikshaws can be parked in front of the shops of the members of the petitioner, urged the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The 2nd respondent entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The 2nd respondent submitted that the autorikshaw parking places are earmarked by the Traffic Regulatory Committee. The Traffic Regulatory Committee consisting of various stakeholders have considered and discussed the issue in detail and found that in public interest, 11 autorikshaws will have to be parked on the road in question. Accordingly, 11 places were earmarked by the Traffic Regulatory Committee for parking of autorikshaws. The petitioners cannot raise any grievance against those parking places which according to the 2nd respondent is not in front of the shops nor obstructing ingress and egress to any shops. The respondents 6 to 8 also resisted the writ petition on similar grounds.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 9 and the learned counsel for respondents 6 to 8.
7. The Traffic Regulatory Committee is empowered to decide and earmark parking places for autorikshaws and taxi cars. In the exercise of its powers, the Traffic Regulatory Committee has passed Ext.P7 order, permitting parking of 11 autorikshaws on the road in question. However, the contention of the petitioner is that in view of the Regulation 22 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 , no autorikshaws can be permitted to be parked before or after an intersection or a junction upto a distance of 50 mts. from the edge of the intersection or junction.
8. Going by Ext.R6(a) sketch, the parking slots earmarked for the aut
