Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 35060
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
2026:KER:41196
WP(C) NO. 15722 OF 2011
PETITIONER/S:
M.M.MOIDUNNY
PROPRIETOR, MUKKANDATH COMPLEX, KUNNAMKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF, ATTORNEY
K.H.MOHAMMED, KARUMANTEKAYIL HOUSE, KUPRAVALLY,
PUNNAYOORKULAM, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ALAN PAPALI
SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA
SHRI.NISHIL.P.S.
SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN
SHRI.J.VIMAL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL, OFFICE,
KUNNAMKULAM P.O.-680 503, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KUNNAMKULAM, KUNNAMKULAM P.O.-680 503, THRISSUR
DISTRICT.
4 SRI.KURIAKOSE
SON OF KUNHUMMU, AVEMAL HOUSE, CHOWANNUR P.O.,
KUNNAMKULAM-680 503.
5 SRI.JOBY, SON OF VARATHAPPAN
PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, CHOWANNUR P.O., KUNNAMKULAM-680 503.
6 SRI.SANTHOSH.T.C
SON OF T.K.CHANDRAN, THAYYIL HOUSE, SIVA TEMPLE
ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM-680 503.
7 SRI.PRASAD, SON OF VASU
MENOTHI HOUSE, KANIPAYYOOR P.O., KUNNAMKULAM-680 503.
8 SRI.AJITH KUMAR, SON OF LATE KRISHNAN
KANDIRUTHY HOUSE, KANIPAYYOOR P.O., KUNNAMKULAM 680 503.
9 SRI.STALIN SIMON.K., SON OF SIMON
KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE, KAKKAD, KUNNAMKULAM P.O.- 680 503.
0 SRI.SASI, SON OF MADHAVAN
KUWAPPATTIL HOUSE, CHOWANNUR P.O., KUNNAMKULAM 680 503.[DELETED][RESPONDENT NO.10 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 18.01.2016 IN IA 694/16.]
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN
SMT.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA
SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1948
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Alan Papali, Gilbert George Correya, Nishil P.S., P.K. Vijayamohanan, J. Vimal
For the Respondents: P. Ramachandran, Ambika Devi, K. Janardhana Shenoy
A writ petition may be dismissed as infructuous if it has remained pending for an extensive period without interim orders and the original grievances have lost their relevance due to the passage of time.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the local municipality and the police to prevent unauthorized parking of autorickshaws in front of their shopping complex, which allegedly blocked access and encroached upon customers' parking areas. The petitioner further sought to restrain specific drivers from creating such obstructions. The core issue was whether the long-pending petition warranted judicial intervention to direct public authorities to manage traffic and parking obstructions. The court observed that given the lapse of time since the inception of the petition in 2011 and the absence of any interim orders, the relief originally sought had likely become obsolete. The writ petition was disposed of as infructuous, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue fresh legal remedies if a new cause of action arises.
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
W.P(C) No. 15722 of 2011
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2026
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
(i) To issue a writ of mandamus, order or appropriate direction directing the 2nd respondent Municipality to provide necessary Cart Stands and prohibit the parking of Autorickshaws on the side of the State Highway in front of the Shopping Complex of the petitioner enblocking the free ingress for the customers of the Shopping Complex and even the customers' parking area of the Shopping Complex;
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction directing the 3rd respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnamkulam to prevent the illegal and unauthorized parking of Autorickshaws in front of the Shopping Complex of the petitioner blocking free access to the Shopping Complex and thereby prevent the law and order problem being created by the drivers of the Autorickshaws including respondents 4 to 10 on the ground of parking in front of the Shopping Complex and even encroaching upon the customers' parking area of the Shopping Complex of the petitioner;
(iii) To declare that the respondents 4 to 10 and similar drivers of the Autorickshaws have no right to park their vehicles in a manner obstructing the free access to the Shopping Complex of the petitioner from the State Highway and also encroaching upon the customers' parking area of the Shopping Complex;
(iv) To issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondents 2 and 3 to take appropriate action on Exts.P2 and P3 respectively;And
(v) To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case."
[SIC]
2. This Writ Petition is pending before this Court from 2011 onwards. No interim order has been passed in this case. Probably, the prayers in this Writ Petition might have become infructuous. Hence, this Writ Petition need not be retained here. If there is any fresh cause of action to the petitioner, the same is left open.
With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
