IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 12145 of 2011(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SHAJI JOSEPH, M/S.MARIA HIRING SERVICES, KERALA STATE HOUSING BUILDINGS, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM. 2. MARIAMMA JOSEPH, M/S.QUEEN BEAUTY NOOK, KERALA STATE HOUSING BUILDINGS, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM. 3. THANKAMMA THOMAS, M/S.HEPH-ZI-BAH BEAUTY PARIOUR & SCHOOL OF BEAUTY, KERALA STATE HOUSING BUILDINGS, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM PO. - 686 001. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. RAFEEQUE V.K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 12145 of 2011(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 25-3-2011 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 17-2-2011 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 08-2-2011 TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING PARKING OF TAXIES INFRONT OF THE PETITIOENR'S SHOP ROOMS. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 21-3-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 12145 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October 2011. JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed for a direction directing the respondents to take action against the illegal and unauthorised parking of taxies and other vehicles in front of the petitioners' shop rooms obstructing its view and free ingress and egress of its customers. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the respondents have earmarked places for parking taxis within the area and jurisdiction of the 1st respondent. But a few taxi car/bus/ autorickshaw owners/ drivers are flouting the directions of the respondents and parking their vehicles in front of the petitioners' shop room obstructing its view and ingress and egress. It is submitted that the customers of the petitioners are not getting space for parking their vehicles and this is causing much hardships and difficulties to the petitioners. Though the issue regarding unauthorised parking is raised before the respondents various times, no action is seen W.P.(C) No. 12145/2011 2 taken on the same. It is pointed out that the respondents are duty bound to see that the taxis and other vehicles are observing traffic regulations properly and that in spite of repeated representations and objections, the respondents are not taking action against the taxi owners/drivers who are flouting the directions regarding parking etc. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent Municipality, it is stated that apart from the establishments being run by the petitioners, there are other tenants of the building as well and thus the respondent cannot prevent the parking of the vehicles owned by the owners of other establishments or their customers using the parking space in front of the building. It is also stated that the Municipality has earmarked places for parking autorikshaws by the side of the building and that taxies and autorikshaws are being parked in the parking space allotted to them. It is further stated that to the knowledge of the respondent, the space in front of the shops owned by the petitioners is not used as taxi stand or auto stand. 3. In para 5 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Municipality has, in exercise of the statutory powers conferred on it, allotted separate W.P.(C) No. 12145/2011 3 space for the parking of autorickshaws and taxies. Now it is up to the police authorities to implement the decisions taken at the meeting convened by the Motor Vehicle Authorities. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the first respondent have earmarked space for parking taxis and autorickshaws, drivers have not parked their vehicles in the space allotted to them. A few taxi drivers and autorickshaw drivers parking their vehicles in front of the shop rooms are obstructing the egress and ingress and are not following the instructions of the 1st respondent. If the ingress and egress to the petitioners shop is obstructed by the unauthorised parking of taxies and autorikshaws, it is always open to the respondents to take necessary action for unauthorised parking. 4. The respondents are duty bound to implement traffic regulations and see that the drivers of taxies and autorickshaws are following the traffic regulations properly. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no justification for unauthorised parking of autorickshaws and taxies in front of the petitioner's shop rooms and in other areas of the rest of the building and it shall have to be prohibited and prevented. The first respondent Municipality has already taken a decision in the matter. W.P.(C) No. 12145/2011 4 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, a direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to take action against the unauthorised parking of autorickshaws and other vehicles in front of the petitioners' shop rooms obstructing the ingress and egress to his customers. Appropriate action shall be taken within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE al