Unrestricted public access must be prioritized over parking arrangements in congested areas to enhance safety and avoid conflicts.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner challenge Exhibit P3 order of the first respondent by which, auto rickshaws have been permitted to be parked in front of the shops owned by the petitioner and others. According to the petitioner, the parking of auto rickshaws in front of the shops affect and cause considerable hindrance to the ingress and egress of the petitioner and his customers. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate directions setting aside Exhibit P2. It is contended that he is entitled to unhindered access to the public road in front of his shop room.

2. According to Shri. R.Gopan who appears for the first respondent, the junction in question is a very small one. The Panchayat has no space or land available at the junction to provide for parking of auto rickshaws. The road is also very narrow. Therefore, the only means of providing a facility for the parking of auto rickshaws is in front of the shop room of the petitioner and others. Care has been taken in Exhibit P3 to provide that the auto rickshaws are parked only in such a way as not to cause obstruction or inconvenience to the customers of the petitioner. The vehicular traffic as well as the pedestrian public are not to be inconvenienced in any manner. A distance of 5feet from the petitioner's shop is directed to be maintained by each auto rickshaw that is permitted to be parked. It is also stipulated that when articles are to be unloaded from trucks to the shop room, the auto rickshaws are to be moved to provide necessary space. In view of the above, it is contended that absolutely no inconvenience is caused either to the petitioner or his customers.

3. Heard. What emerges from the contentions advanced before me is that the junction in question is a very small one, where the road is also narrow. It is stated by the counsel for the first respondent that parking of vehicles has been prohibited in front of the market that is close by, leaving only the road portion in front of the petitioner's shop room, for the purpose of accommodating the parking. If the road is narrow and the junction a very small one, then one fails to understand why it is insisted that parking of auto rickshaws should be done at the junction itself. Such a course would only add to the congestion that is already faced at the junction by reason of the narrowness of the road. If there is no facility for providing a convenient space for parking of the auto rickshaws, it is only appropriate that the same is shifted from the junction to some other spot that does not cause congestion to the vehicular as well as pedestrian traffic. Parking of vehicles including auto rickshaws at junctions would also obstruct the visibility of the vehicles, leading to frequent accidents. It is better that auto rickshaw stands are located a little away from the junction, if no convenient place is available at the junction, as in the present case. The above aspect ought to have been considered, especially in the background of the difficulties pointed out by the petitioner and other traders.

The restrictions that are stipulated by Exhibit P3 are not all effective for the reason that there is no way of enforcing the same effectively. The said restrictions can only create altercations and disputes between the auto rickshaw drivers and the traders, one asserting that there is obstruction with the other denying the allegation.

For the above reasons, Exhibit P3 is set aside. The first respondent shall consider the matter afresh, find out a suitable place for locating the auto rickshaw stand and shall pass fresh orders in the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the auto rickshaw drivers, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.