Court emphasized the enforcement of local governance decisions against disruption of business operations.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents No. 1 to 5 to implement the Ext.P2 decision passed by the first respondent with the aid of police.

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the fourth and fifth respondents to provide sufficient protection to the property of the petitioner from sixth and seventh respondents and their henchmen as prayed in Ext.P5 complaint and implement Ext.P2 decision.

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents No. 1 to 5 to conduct an enquiry on Ext.P4 & P5 complaints submitted by the petitioner.

iv) a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or direction to the respondents No. 1 to 5 that ensure the fundamental rights of the petitioner to do business at his establishment without any obstruction to his private right or access to the road, which is guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

v) a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or direction to the first & second respondent that to declare that place between the road and shop room bearing number KP-13/61 to KP-13/67, KP-13/949 to KP-13/951 & KP-13/712 to KP-13/720 of Kottopadam Grama Panchayath is not a taxi stand as per the Panchayath (land Places, Halting Places, Cart Stands and other Vehicle Stands) Rules 1995(Kerala).

vi) Such any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

vii) a direction to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular document produced with this writ petition.”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved because of the unauthorised parking of taxi autorikshaws in front of the building of the petitioner by causing obstruction to the customers of the various shops and establishments functioning in the petitioner’s building. It is submitted as per Ext.P2, a decision is taken by the Grama Panchayat. But, the same is violated by the autorikshaw drivers.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learend Standing Counsel and the learned Government Pleader. Even though notice is issued to respondents 6 and 7, there is no appearance for the said respondents.

4. When this writ petition came up for consideration before this Court on 24.06.2025, this Court passed the following orders:

Admit.

Standing Counsel takes notice for respondents

1 and 2. Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 3 to 5. Issue urgent notice by speed post to respondents 6 and 7.

Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent to make available decision taken pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment.

In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent to ensure that ingress and egress to the shops are not obstructed by the autorickshaws.

Post on 25.07.2025.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even now the decision in Ext.P2 is violated by the autorikshaw drivers.

If that is the case, I am of the considered opinion that, there can be a direction to the 4^th respondent to see that Ext.P2 decision of the Panchayat is obeyed by the auytorikshaw drivers. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

i) The interim order dated 24.06.2025, is retained and made absolute.

ii) The 4^th respondent will also see that Ext.P2 decision of the Grama Panchayat are not violated by the autorikshaw drivers.