Commercial entities must obtain a license to collect fees for parking services as mandated by the Kerala Municipality Act.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved with the interdiction of collection of parking fees made by the Municipality by Exts. P1 and P3 notices. Admittedly, the petitioner built a multi storeyed commercial complex and has now imposed a parking fee for the parking carried on within the premises of the building. The Municipality, by the impugned notices, have directed the petitioner to stop collecting the parking fees which, according to the Municipality, is an unauthorised activity, without a license. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no authority on the Municipality to so interdict the petitioner.

2. The learned Counsel for the Municipality refers to two decisions of this Court; K.A. Sobha v. Palakkad Municipality – W.P.(C) No.15647/2014 (E) and K.P.

W.P.(C) No. 15176/2017 Muhammed Ashraf v. The Kannur Corporation – W.P. (C) No.37081/2015 (I), which has considered the issue. K.A. Sobha (supra) was followed in K.P. Muhammed Ashraf (supra) and the issue is no longer res integra. Looking at Section 475 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 ('Act' for short) and the explanation to Section 472 of the Act, it was found by this Court that the provision for cart stands has to be under a license issued by the Municipality and the cart stand, as defined in the explanation to Section

472 of the Act, takes in parking of any other vehicles also.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the parking area provided is in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. There are two theaters established in the complex and there are many customers coming to the other business establishments in the commercial complex, which has created congestion inside the parking space and, hence, only to restrict any unauthorised parking, the fees W.P.(C) No. 15176/2017 has been prescribed. It is also submitted that the petitioner has employed personnel to control the parking of vehicles and also installed certain machinery. To recoup such expenses and as a fee for the service of parking, the present system has been introduced.

4. The learned Counsel for the Municipality, however, asserts that the parking space provided for in a multi storeyed commercial complex is a service, which had to be offered by the building owner to the customers coming therein free of cost. The permission for a commercial complex is granted only with provision for parking vehicles to ensure that the public roads are free of congestion. By imposing a parking fee, the very intention behind providing for parking space is violated and public interest stands compromised. The petitioner definitely could provide parking free of cost, but, when a fee is levied from the vehicles parked within the complex, necessarily, there is a commercial activity carried on, which, as per the W.P.(C) No. 15176/2017 Statute, has to be licensed.

5. This Court is of the opinion that the submissions of the Municipality has to be accepted. The petitioner would, necessarily, have to obtain license from the Municipality to continue levying fees for the parking of vehicles within the complex. The petitioner is directed to file an application and when the application is under consideration, the petitioner shall provide parking free of cost. After the license is issued, the petitioner could impose fee for the parking provided. If the application is filed, the same shall be considered expeditiously.

The writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.