IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 6590 of 1999(H) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.K.LALAN, SON OF KUMARAN, VAKKAYIL HOUSE, MANNAM, N.PARAVUR, SECRETARY, ALL KERALA SWATHANTHRA DRIVERS' UNION, PARAVUR UNIT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN SRI.V.DEVAN SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY N.PARAVUR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION (B) DEPARTMENT , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI - R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA BABU SMT.T.V.NEEMA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2008, ALONG WITH OP. NO.16901/1999 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.6590/1999 ORDER ON CMP. NO.11190/1999 IN OP. NO.6590/1999 DISMISSED 18.03.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAUR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- NOTIFICATION DT. 8.11.1967 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE ON 19.12.1967 . EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE SIT RESPONDENT IN OP.4249/91 DT. 20.4.91. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT. 13.7.93 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE ON 17.8.93. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 20.2.98 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN OP. NO.3966/94. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 5.3.98. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 15.4.98 PASSED BY THE SIT RESPONDENT. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 8.2.98 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN OP. 8396/98 DT. 4.8.98. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 15.1.99 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE INSCRIPTION DT. 13.6.78 EXT.P10(A):- COPY OF THE INSCRIPTION DT. 17.7.82. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ========================= O.P.NOs.6590 & 16901 of 1999. ========================= Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T These original petitions relate to common issue. The petitioner in OP.No.6590/1999 is the Secretary of All Kerala Swathanthra Drivers Union, Paravur Unit. He is a driver of a tourist taxi car. The various motor vehicle operators like Taxis, Autorikshaws, Trekkers, Tata Sumo vehicles, Tempo Vans and other goods vehicles have been operating in Paravur Town. The dispute is regarding the failure of the Municipality to provide parking space to these vehicles. By Ext.P1 notification dated 8.11.1967 in OP.No.6590/1999 certain areas were notified as cart stands on a temporary basis. Thereafter the Municipality had constructed a commercial building in Survey No.279/2 of Paravur Village and therefore the said land was not available for parking of vehicles. They constructed a taxi stand cum shopping complex also O.P.NOs.6590 & 16901/1999. -: 2 :- in the other area where at a time only 11 taxi cars alone can be parked. In view of the situation many of the vehicles were being parked in front of the court compound on the side of Aluva – Paravur main road which was not adequate or suitable for parking of vehicles. The conversion of the parking space on the southern side of the main road near the Sreemoolam Jubilee Club into a shopping complex area was challenged by some persons by filing OP.No.4249/1991 before this Court. This Court noted the averment in the counter affidavit that the Municipality has provided alternate sites and hence directed the petitioner to avail of those alternate sites for parking the vehicles. Fresh disputes arose when the Municipality sought to make construction of shop rooms in Survey No.276/10 GH on the northern side of Aluva – Paravur main road side. Apprehending that this will deprive parking space, OP.No.3966/1994 was filed by the petitioner. The substantial challenge was against Ext.P3 notification whereby the first respondent had cancelled Ext.P1 notification. The above original petition was disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P4 O.P.NOs.6590 & 16901/1999. -: 3 :- judgment directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation that was to be filed by the petitioner and the union. Accordingly, seeking additional parking space, Ext.P5 representation was filed. By Ext.P6 the first respondent rejected the representation. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation before the second respondent under Section 57 of the Kerala Municipalities Act to cancel the resolution passed by the Municipality resolving to evict the taxi cars from the taxi stand. Subsequently in OP.No.8396/1998 filed by the petitioner, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the said representation. That was rejected by Ext.P9. Ext.P9 is under challenge in this original petition. 2. In Ext.P9 the Government found that the action of the Municipal Council in denotifying the parking area is legally correct. But converting the space into shop rooms should be in conformity with the building rules. 3. In OP.No.16901/1999 the petitioners have approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to clear the parking O.P.NOs.6590 & 16901/1999. -: 4 :- space provided in the ground floor of the Municipal Shopping Complex at Nambooriachan Aal at North Paravur and to provide this area as parking space for the use of the tenants and occupants of the shopping complex and their employees and customers. 4. As far as the challenge in Ext.P9 is concerned, I find that the Government has considered various aspects in detail. It cannot be disputed that the Municipality has power to withdraw the notification dated 8.11.1967 in view of the changed circumstances. The Government also noticed that the Municipality had expanded the taxi stand in front of the Court complex to the western side of the gate and thus provided additional parking facility. Ext.P9 do not call for any interference in these proceedings that too at this distance of time. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the Municipality it is contended that the Municipality is entitled to make use of the sites for various purposes including shopping complex. It is open to the Municipality to make use of such space. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that going by Sec.472 of the O.P.NOs.6590 & 16901/1999. -: 5 :- Municipalities Act the Municipality will have to provide or construct public landing places, halting places and cart stands and may levy fees for the use of the same in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government. It is submitted that there is lack of sufficient space and due to the increase in the number of vehicles which are operated as taxis, etc., the situation has changed a lot after the filing of these writ petitions and therefore the Municipality should be directed to have a re-look in this matter. I find force in the submission. Therefore, even though the challenge against Ext.P9 is repelled, the Municipality is directed to reassess the situation as at present and take appropriate measures in accordance with law, to set right the complaints regarding lack of parking space in the Town. With the above observations, the Original Petitions are dismissed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/- O.P.NOs.6590 & 16901/1999. -: 6 :-