Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 37908
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
MAHAROOF.E.M.P. – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 8885 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.M.BAIJU NOEL
For the Respondents: GP- NIMA JACOB
Court affirmed Traffic Regulatory Committee's authority to manage unauthorized parking affecting business access.
Headnote:(A) Municipalities Act - Issues of unauthorized parking and traffic congestion - Direction issued to Traffic Regulatory Committee to convene a meeting regarding removal of unauthorized parking interfering with a shop's accessibility. (Paras 2 and 3)
(B) Judicial Review - The court held that it is within the jurisdiction of the Traffic Regulatory Committee to decide on parking arrangements, particularly where the space is not officially earmarked for such purposes. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought directions from the Municipality after it was reported that autorickshaws were causing obstruction due to unauthorized parking, despite agreements made previously.
Findings of Court:
The Traffic Regulatory Committee must meet with all parties involved to ensure compliance with the earlier decision regarding parking.
Issues: Main issues revolved around unauthorized parking, adequacy of ingress/egress for the shop, and the authority of the Traffic Regulatory Committee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the need for following up on decisions concerning unauthorized parking arrangements and emphasized compliance by local authorities to ensure traffic regulation.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions for further action.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner requests for the removal of unauthorized autorickshaw parking obstructing business access. (Para 1) |
| 2. municipality admits temporary parking is not officially sanctioned and discussions occurred to resolve the issue. (Para 2) |
| 3. court directs traffic regulatory committee to act on the unauthorized parking affecting the petitioner. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction commanding the 3rd respondent Municipality to implement the decision taken during the meeting conducted on 20.03.2020 to remove the illegal and unauthorised parking of autorickshaws in front of the petitioner’s establishment causing obstruction to the ingress and egress. Petitioner has also sought for a direction to the 3rd respondent to remove the illegal and unauthorised parking in front of the petitioner’s establishment.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent wherein in paragraph 4 it is stated that based on the letter dated 29.01.2020 from the Office of District Collector, Kannur, a hearing was conducted by the Chairman of the Payyannur Municipality to discuss the issues dealing with illegal and unauthorized parking of autorickshaws in front of petitioner's establishment and in the said meeting a decision was taken to give a way in front of the petitioner's shop. After that, all the shops were closed for a long time due to covid 19 pandemic and when the shops were reopened, autorickshaws were still lined up in front of the shop and that now the matter is under consideration by the Traffic Regulatory Committee of the Payyannur Municipality. It is further stated that the said parking of autorickshaws in front of the petitioner’s shop is only a temporary arrangement for a short time in order to regularise the traffic blocks and to avoid traffic congestion in Payyannur bus stand. It is also admitted that it is not an area granted for parking of autorickshaws by the Municipality. It is contended that the petition submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the 3rd respondent and on 05.02.2020 a meeting of the office bearers of autorickshaw union as well as the petitioner was convened in which a decision was taken to give a way in front of the shop of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in spite of such decision no action has been taken to provide ingress and egress to the shop of the petitioner.
Admittedly where the autorickshaws are parked is not an area earmarked by the Municipality for parking. Therefore the above writ petition is disposed of as follows: The Traffic Regulatory Committee headed by the Chairman of the Payyannur Municipality shall convene a meeting with notice to the petitioner and the representatives of the autorickshaw unions and shall see that a way is provided in front of the shop of the petitioner for ingress and egress. If there is any violation of the decision of the Traffic Regulatory Committee, the 4th respondent shall see that the decision is strictly complied with. In the said meeting the Traffic Regulatory Committee shall also decide as to whether parking of autorickshaws could be permitted in an area which is not earmarked as parking place by the Municipality.
