Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 19047
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
JAISON THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 25907 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.MURALIKRISHNAN, ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB, P.I.RAHEENA, SHAHNA
For the Respondents: P.C.SASIDHARAN
The court mandates prompt action from administrative authorities regarding unauthorized parking complaints by business owners.
Headnote:In this writ petition, the petitioner, running a bakery, complained about illegal parking of autorickshaws. The court determined that the respondents should address the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding the parking issue, directing actions within two months. The primary issue was the need for authorized parking in front of the petitioner’s shop. The court's decision emphasized the responsibility of the official respondents to resolve this complaint promptly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's complaint about illegal parking. (Para 1) |
| 2. discussion of arguments presented by counsel. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's directive for administrative action. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be running a bakery business in Payyavoor Grama Panchayat in Shop Room No. PPXII/178. The petitioner complains about the illegal parking of the autorickshaws by the respondent No.10 herein, as is evidenced by the photographs at Ext.P5. The petitioner further points out that, with respect to the illegal parking of the autorickshaws as above, he has submitted Ext.P2 representation to the official respondents seeking their interference in the matter.
2. Heard Sri. Muralikrishnan C., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the respondent Panchayat, as well as Sri. N.B. Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.
3. The learned Government Pleader, on the basis of the instructions received, would contend that as of now there is no authorized auto parking in front of the petitioner’s shop room.
4. If that be the case, I am of the opinion that it is for the official respondents to take note of the complaint filed by the petitioner as above and take effective steps in the matter. This is all the more so when, in spite of service of notice, the
10th respondent is not represented before this Court.
In such circumstances, this writ petition would stand disposed of, directing respondent Nos.3 to 6 to take note of Ext.P2 representation and pass appropriate orders for redressing the grievance of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
