Unauthorized parking obstructing business access violates property rights; regulatory bodies must enforce compliance.

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 1^st Respondent to remove the illegal parking of the auto rickshaws and others in front of the petitioner's shop rooms, along the sides.

ii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get cleared, the obstruction in front of his building caused by the parking of the auto rickshaws along the side of busy PWD road.

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or commanding the 1^st respondent to consider Ext-P5 representation and take appropriate remedial action.

iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or commanding the 6^th Respondent to consider Ext-P3 representation and take appropriate remedial action.

v) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Wirt, order or commanding the 4^th Respondent to a enough protection to the Petitioner and remove the illegally parked auto rickshaws parked in front of the petitioner's shop rooms.

vi) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or commanding the 1^st respondent to identify an area conducive to house the Auto Stand.

vii) petitioners may be permitted to dispense with the filing of translation of the vernacular documents;

viii) Pass such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case. ”

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is a resident of Kanjikuzhy Gramapanchayath in Idukki District and he is the owner of several shop rooms located in a busy area near the Kurishupally, is the submission. The petitioner has been consistently paying building and other taxes for the property, is the further submission. The grievance of the petitioner is that the businesses in the shop rooms are affected because of the unauthorized parking of auto rickshaws blocking the entry to the building. Hence this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat and the learned Government Pleader. Even though notice is issued to respondents 7 and 8, there is no appearance for them.

4. This Court considered the pleadings in the Writ Petition and also the contentions raised by the petitioner. After hearing both sides, I think there can be a direction to respondents 1 and 4 to see that there is no obstruction to the ingress and egress to the petitioner’s shop rooms by the parking of autorickshaws. A perusal of Ext.P5 would show that the premises mentioned by the petitioner is not an authorised parking area for autorickshaws.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. The 1^st and 4^th respondents will see that there is no unauthoised parking in front of the petitioner’s shop rooms affecting the ingress and egress to the shop rooms.

2. The 1^st and 4^th respondents will also make necessary arrangements to erect no parking board in that area.

Sd/-