IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4916 of 2009(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- LISSY SABU, W/O.SABU, THAZHATTUKANDATHIL HOUSE, UZHAVOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE UZHAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UZHAVOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V. MANU. R2 BY ADV. MR.J.JULIAN XAVIER, MR.FIROZ K.ROBIN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 4916/2009-I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/02/2004 IN WP(C) NO. 28346/2003. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/11/2004 IN WP(C) NO. 15200/2004. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/06/2004 IN I.A.NO.5917/2004 IN WP(C) NO. 28346/2003. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/07/2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05/05/2005 FILED BY THE UZHAVOOR DRIVER'S ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/11/2006 IN WP(C) NO. 31786/2005. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/12/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE TENDER NTOFICATION THAT APPEARED IN MANGALAM DAILY DATED 25/02/2009. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).4916/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner owns 4.28 Ares of land in the Uzhavoor Town where there is a commercial building. She has let out four rooms to different tenants who are carrying on different business in the rooms. Petitioner's complaint is that for want of a regulated parking area for the auto rickshaws, taxis etc, these vehicles are parked in front of the shops as a result thereof, business of the tenants are affected and ingress and egress of the shop rooms is also obstructed. 2. Two tenants of the building had approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing W.P.(C).28346/2003. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment rendered on 11.2.2004. In that judgment, this Court held that it is the duty of the Panchayat to provide parking areas for the vehicles. It was also held that it is the duty of the police to regulate vehicle parking. The Panchayat was directed to provide separate W.P.(C).4916/09 2 parking areas for taxis and other vehicles so that there will not be any parking in front of the shop rooms. Subsequent to the judgment, one of the petitioners in Ext.P1 approached this Court by filing I.A.5917/04 complaining that in the absence of time limit prescribed by this Court, the Panchayat is not taking expeditious action. When that I.A came up for orders, it was submitted on behalf of the Panchayat that they had already taken a decision and in view of such a submission, this Court passed Ext.P3 order directing the Panchayat to communicate the decision to the petitioners therein. 3. Ext.P2 is a judgment rendered in W.P.(C).15200/2004. Petitioners therein are two other tenants of the same building. Directions similar to what are issued in Ext.P1 were issued in that case also. Subsequently Panchayat issued Ext.P4 communication to the petitioners in Ext.P1 judgment informing that the Panchayat has already taken steps for regulating the parking of the vehicles and that the Panchayat is initiating steps for acquisition of land for providing separate parking area. It W.P.(C).4916/09 3 was further informed that once separate parking area is provided, there will not be any parking in front of the shop rooms. As there was no progress in the matter of acquisition of land, representations were again made. Those representations were directed to be considered by Ext.P6 judgment in W.P.(C). 31786/05. Even then there was no progress. Therefore the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation. There was no response to Ext.P7 representation also. This writ petition was thereafter filed praying for a direction to the Panchayat to comply with the directions already issued in Exts.P1, P2 and P6 judgments and expedite steps for acquisition of land as mentioned in Ext.P4. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat, they have explained the steps that have been taken for regulating the vehicle parking. Insofar as the acquisition of land is concerned, the Panchayat authorities say that they had issued a tender notice a copy of which is produced as Ext.R1(a). It is stated that there was no response to Ext.R1(a) and as the Panchayat does W.P.(C).4916/09 4 not have sufficient financial resources, it is difficult for them to raise necessary funds for acquisition of sufficient land. 5. If, as a matter of fact, the Panchayat is in short of funds, this Court cannot be unrealistic and still direct the Panchayat to acquire necessary property. Therefore, the prayer sought by the petitioner to direct the Panchayat to expedite the proceedings for acquisition of land, cannot, in the circumstances, be granted. 6. However, as pointed out by this Court in Exts.P1 and P2 judgments, it is the statutory obligation of the Panchayat to ensure separate parking area so that there will not be any difficulty to the general public or merchants. This apparently is what the Panchayat has attempted to provide by earmarking separate parking area within Uzhavoor town itself. Such steps have already been taken and what is now required to be done by the Panchayat is that the Panchayat should ensure that the steps taken by it for regulated parking is strictly complied with. W.P.(C).4916/09 5 7. Therefore, I direct the respondent Panchayat to ensure that the regulated parking provided by them in Uzhavoor town is obeyed by all concerned so that the inconvenience caused to persons like the petitioner, the trading community or the pedestrian is minimized. 8. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition before the Panchayat for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs