Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 42457
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
HAREES – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 13873 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR, SMT.A.SALINI LAL, SHRI.JINU P. BINU
For the Respondents: SRI.SIJU KAMALASANAN, SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE
Unauthorized parking blocking access to properties is illegal under property rights, affirmed by previous rulings.
Headnote:In view of the statutes concerning property rights and traffic regulations, the petitioner, owner of shop rooms, contends that unauthorized parking by auto drivers obstructs customer access. Previous court rulings affirm this obstruction as illegal. The court's findings direct traffic management authorities to uphold shop access rights. Main issues include unauthorized parking viability and infringements on property access rights, determining the unauthorised parking as violating established rights. The court concludes by mandating traffic authority regulation to prevent obstruction to the petitioner’s property access as per previous judgments.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. unauthorized parking obstructs access. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. previous rulings confirm right to access. (Para 3 , 4) |
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2025 The petitioner is the owner of 43 Cents of property in Re-Survey No.429/9, 429/7/4 of Clappana Village. The petitioner has constructed a shopping complex consist of 15 shop rooms at Thottathil Mukku. This is constructed in 'L’ shape. Out of the 15 shop rooms, 7 shop rooms are located on the roadside of Changankulangara-Pallikkadavu road.
2. Respondents 6 to 8 along with nearly 15 auto drivers are parking autorickshaw infront of the shop rooms, blocking the ingress and egress of the customers. The 4th respondent has not granted any permission for the auto stand. Respondent 6 to 8 along with 15 other autorikshaw drivers are parking the autorickshaws illegally. Even though the petitioner has given a complaint for removing the autorickshaws, the same was not considered by respondents 1 to 4. A Division Bench of this Court has held against illegally parking autorickshaws blocking the ingress and egress to the shop rooms, contends the petitioner.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3.
4. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Noushad M and others v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (2) KHC 562] has held that unauthorised parking of autoricksaws in front of shops and houses blocking free ingress and egress is illegal and unjustifiable. Permitting parking of autorickshaws permanently in front of shop rooms on the side of a highway is an appropriation of the private right of owners of shops and houses to have free access to highway. Obstructing such private right abutting highway is not justified.
In view of the facts stated above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to ensure that ingress and egress to the petitioner's shop is not blocked by autorickshaw parking. However, the 5th respondent-Traffic Regulatory Authority, will be free to take any decision in the matter of parking of autorickshaws, without offending the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Noushad M (supra).
