Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
Siby George – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Elappra Grama Panchayath – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. obstruction to property access by parked vehicles must be addressed (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. traffic regulatory committees are mandated to manage public traffic concerns (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. writ petitions compel authorities to consider grievances and act within stipulated time (Para 7) |
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2025 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to take immediate action on Exts.P3 and P6 complaints and remove the autorickshaws parked in front of the petitioner’s property.
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of the property covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt and situated within the territorial limits of the 1st respondent Panchayat. The petitioner contends that autorickshaws are being indiscriminately parked in front of his property, which is obstructing his free ingress and egress. Consequently, the petitioner has submitted Exts.P3 and P6 complaints before the respondents 1 and 2 respectively. But, no action has been taken in the matter. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 3 and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner’s p
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
