Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 19570
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
DINIMOL GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 23497 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.NOBLE MATHEW
For the Respondents: SRI.P.C.HARIDAS, GP SRI P S APPU, SRI PRAKASH C VADAKKAN, SC
The court reinforces the necessity for unobstructed access to business premises, validating interim orders for compliance against unauthorized obstructions.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The petition was filed invoking the powers under WP
(C) for appropriate writs concerning vehicular parking. Facts of the Case: The petitioner sought a mandamus to direct the respondents to identify proper parking areas and ensure unobstructed access to their laboratory.
Findings of Court:
The court recorded no obstruction from other respondents, made the interim order absolute, allowing for further compliance checks as needed.
Issues: The court framed the issue on proximity to the business premises and obstruction caused by unauthorized parking.
Ratio Decidendi: The reasoning hinged on maintaining accessibility for customers while regulating nearby vehicle parking.
Result: The writ petition is disposed of with directions for adherence to the interim order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner sought directions for access management. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court observed compliance with prior orders. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
i. “Call for the records in the above case.
ii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondent No.5 to Identify the areas where the vehicles can be parked without causing any hindrance to the petitioner and report the matter to respondent No.1 and 2. iii. issue a writ in the nature of prohibition, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding respondent Nos.3 and 4 to ensure that there is no parking of any vehicle for a stretch of 30 feet in front of the petitioner's shop;
iv. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction directing respondent No.5 and 3 to remove all obstructions for the Ingress and egress to the petitioner's customers and their vehicles who are coming to the petitioner's Laboratory.
v. Pass such other reliefs as are necessary In the facts and of case.
iv. To dispose without English translation of vernacular documents.” [sic]
2. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 19.07.2023, this Court passed the following order :
“Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 4. issue urgent notice on admission by speed post to respondents 5, 6 and 7.
In the meanwhile, there will be an interim order directing the 3rd respondent to ensure that ingress and egress to the petitioner's Diagnostics Centre at Antinadu is not obstructed by autorickshaws.”
3. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 submitted that there is no obstruction as alleged by the petitioner. The same is recorded. But, the interim order can be made absolute. If there is any obstruction, the petitioner can bring to the notice of the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent will do the needful in accordance with law.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :
1) The order dated 19.07.2023 is made absolute.
2) If there is any obstruction from the party respondents for the ingress and egress to the petitioner's Diagnostic Centre at Anthinad, the petitioner can bring to the notice of the same to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent will see that the interim order dated
19.07.2023 is obeyed in letter and spirit.
Sd/-
