Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
SABU VARGHESE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WA NO. 682 OF 2026 | WP(C) NO.21388 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.IRENE BABU
For the Respondents: SMT.ALEXY AUGUSTINE, SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN
The court upheld the legality of the increased parking fee due to inflation and location significance, dismissing the appeal as unmeritorious.
Headnote:The appeal concerns the enhancement of parking fees at Durbar Hall ground, with the petitioners challenging the increase from ₹1,000 to ₹3,000 monthly. The court affirms the legality of the fee increase, stating it is justified due to inflation and location significance. The appeal is dismissed as unmeritorious.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to revised parking fee (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court affirms legality of fee increase (Para 6) |
| 3. appeal dismissed (Para 7) |
Sathish Ninan, J.
The writ petition filed challenging the revision/enhancement of the parking fee for vehicles at the Durbar Hall ground, Ernakulam was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The writ petitioners are in appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.
3. The pay and park facility at the Durbar Hall ground is operated by the District Tourism Promotion council(2nd respondent). The grievance of the petitioners - appellants is against the revision of the monthly parking fee at the ground.
For cars, the revision is from ₹ 1,000/- p.m to ₹ 3,000/-p.m.
W.A. No.682 of 2026
4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there is lack of sufficient parking facility in the vicinity and that the second respondent is not justified in enhancing the parking fee. It was argued that prior to the year 2020-21 the monthly parking fee for cars was only ₹ 500/- and that it was in the year 2020-21 that the fee was enhanced to ₹ 1,000/-. The present enhancement is unconscionable, it is argued.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the District Tourism Promotion Council submitted that, taking into account the passage of time and rise in cost, the hike in parking fee was essential for the proper maintenance of the ground. It was also argued that the revision effected can never be said to be exorbitant.
6. The learned single Judge noticed that the fixation of parking fee of ₹ 3,000/- per month for the parking of a car cannot be said to be exorbitant or arbitrary. The learned single Judge specifically took note of the prominent location of the ground and its importance. It could not be demonstrated before us W.A. No.682 of 2026 with reference to any material that the revision is unconscionable or exorbitant. We concur with the learned Single Judge that the revision cannot be said to be exorbitant.
7. There is no illegality with the impugned judgment calling for interference in appeal.
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
