The collection of parking fees in commercial complexes must comply with licensing requirements under municipal regulations.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25^th day of October, 2025

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 10.04.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.23932 of 2021. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P.(C).

2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the appellant, inter alia, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent shopping mall to return the amount of Rs.20/- alleged to have been collected from him illegally towards parking fee and to issue a writ of prohibition or any order or direction directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents, viz., the State and the Local Government Authority, to restrain the 3^rd respondent from collecting any money from the public towards parking fee.

3. The learned Single Judge, after due hearing, dismissed the W.P.(C), inter alia holding that the collection of fees from the parking slots of the 3^rd respondent shopping mall, though legal, the collection of fees from the vehicles in the multilevel parking facility without obtaining a licence under Section 475 of the Kerala Municipality Act , 1994 is illegal. It was also held that if the 3^rd respondent intends to utilise the multilevel parking facility near the shopping mall and collect parking fees from persons using the facility, the same can be done only under a licence issued in terms of of the Act. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the prayers sought by him were not granted, the appellant had filed this Writ Appeal.

4. Heard Sri.Jacob Mathew, Advocate for the appellant, Sri.T.K.Vipindas, Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 4, Sri.M.K.Aboobacker, Advocate for the 2^nd respondent and Sri.S.Sreekumar, Senior Advocate, for the 3^rd respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and unsustainable. It is contented that the parking space provided for in the multi-storey commercial complex is a service and the same ought to have been made available by the building owner to the customers free of cost. The permission for a commercial complex is granted on the stipulation that parking facilities are included therein to ensure the public roads remain free of congestion. It is contented that by imposing a parking fee, the very intention behind providing parking space had been violated and that the public interest stands compromised. The learned Single Judge, it is submitted, had failed to take note of the said aspect. It is further submitted that the 3^rd respondent could not have converted the parking space provided in the plan submitted by him seeking building permit into a private parking stand and had no authority to collect parking fees from the customers. It was the duty of the 3^rd respondent to provide sufficient parking space in the commercial building. It is contended that Rule 7(9)(D) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 mandates that an applicant is required to show a parking plan with parking spaces, driveways and maneuvering spaces to obtain a building permit. The learned Single Judge ought to have noted that there existed discrepancies in the date of issue and signature in Exhibit R2 (a) and Exhibit R3(a), and the same are hence false documents produced by respondents 2 and 3. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge failed to note that licences under Section 447 and Section 475 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 are different and distinct and that many commercial complexes in Ernakulam, are illegally collecting parking fee from its customers. If the judgment of the learned Single Judge is allowed to remain, the customers who come to the malls will park their vehicles on the side of the roads, which would seriously affect the vehic