Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not for enforcing private rights against another private party; civil court remedy applies.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner seeks for a declaration that the unauthorised parking of vehicles in front of his shop room, obstructing his private right, as illegal. Petitioner also seeks for the grant of police protection for carrying out his business in his shop, after stopping and removing the illegal parking of vehicles by the 7^th respondent.

2. Petitioner is a tenant of shop room Nos.9/626 and 9/632 of Kottarakkara Municipality wherein he is running an electronic showroom and service centre and other telecom related services. According to the petitioner, the 7^th respondent, who is an Architect and Structural Engineer, frequently parks his vehicle in such a manner that the frontage of the petitioner's showroom is completely covered and access to his shop room is partially blocked, thereby preventing customers from entering the petitioner's shop. The petitioner alleges that the 7^th respondent has a shop room behind his shop and he parks his vehicles in such a manner that it blocks the common way to the petitioner's shop room. Petitioner further states that the illegal parking is not authorised under any statutory procedure and constitutes an obstruction to public way and is a public nuisance violating the provisions of various statutes. He had filed a complaint to the Municipality pointing out the obstruction. He also stated that he had filed a complaint before the fifth respondent pointing out the obstruction and requesting adequate police protection to exercise his right. Despite the above two complaints, no action has been taken so far. Relying upon the decision in Noushad M. and Others v. State of Kerala (2019 (2) KHC 562), petitioner asserts that he has an enforceable private right for free access to the road in front of his shop room and preventing such access, is illegal and hence the police ought to interfere and grant protection.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 7^th respondent, refuting the contention that there has been any illegal parking of vehicles causing obstruction to the business concern of the petitioner. It is also averred that the 7^th respondent is a tenant occupying shop room No.9/627 conducting an Architectural Structural Engineer Office, which room forms part of the same building in which the petitioner is also a tenant. The petitioner and the 7^th respondent are tenants under the same landlady. The 7^th respondent has denied the allegation of illegal blockage of access and on the other hand has asserted that he also has a right to park vehicles in front of the building and further that he parks his vehicle only when he attends to his office. It is further asserted that the private right of the petitioner has never been obstructed by the 7^th respondent.

4. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner denying the contentions in the counter affidavit and also averred that parking of vehicles by the 7^th respondent is not occasional but is persistent and deliberate that the same constitutes an invasion to the right of free ingress and egress of the petitioner to his shop.

5. I have heard Sri.R.Raji, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George, the learned Government Pleader, Sri.M.Rajendran Nair on behalf of the 7^th respondent as well as Sri. M.K.Chandramohan Das, the learned counsel for the 8^th respondent.

6. Concededly, petitioner and the 7^th respondent are tenants of the same building. In such circumstances, both have got a right to park their vehicles in front or near the building wherever such area is earmarked. Therefore it cannot be said that parking of vehicles by the 7^th respondent is illegal.

7. The only question that remains is whether the parking is in such a manner that it restricts the access to the petitioner's prope