IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 14680 of 2008(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.I.SADIQUE, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.SAINUDHIN, THENAMMACKAL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY. 2. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. 3. BINS.K.JOSEPH, KATTAKKANADAYIL HOUSE, ALURUMBU PO, EALIKKULAM VILLAGE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SALIM.P.A FOR R1 & R2, ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE FOR R.3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.14680/2008-V: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1218/2007 DTD. 13/03/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 433/2008 IN O.S. NO. 66/2008 DTD. 01/03/2008 FILED BY THE R.3. BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 01/03/2008 PASSED THE MUNSIFF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY IN I.A. NO. 433/2008 IN O.S. 66/2008. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. NIL. SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C)NO. 14680 OF 2008 ============================ Dated this the 10th day of July 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner is a wholesale dealer in food grains including rice. Every day he brings three lorry loads of food grains to his godown. The godown is housed in a building owned by him, the front portion of which is occupied by the third respondent, who is the tenant of that portion of the building. To prevent the petitioner from parking his vehicle by the side of the road in front of his building for unloading the food grains, the third respondent is parking his car in front of the shop room occupied by him. The road is a very narrow road. As a result, the petitioner is not able to take food grains to the godown. In the above background, the WPC.14680/2008 -2 petitioner filed Ext.P4 petition before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanjirappally and thereafter this petition was filed seeking the following reliefs. “to call for the records relating to Exts.P1 to P4 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents 1 and 2 to remove the vehicle parked by the 3rd respondent at the side of the petitioner’s property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed and also to prevent any obstruction caused by the 3rd respondent in carrying out loading and unloading of goods in petitioner’s godown by parking the car and other vehicles in front of the petitioner’s shop and to give sufficient police protection to carry out such loading and unloading work, by parking lorries at the side of Ext.P1 property”. 2. The petitioner submitted that the third respondent moved the civil court by filing O.S.No.66/2008 against him. In that O.S. the third respondent filed Ext.P2 application for injunction in which, inter alia, he prayed for restraining the petitioner from causing obstruction in front of his shop WPC.14680/2008 -3 room. But the learned Munsiff has granted injunction only against forcible eviction of the plaintiff without taking recourse to the procedure established by law. 3. According to the third respondent, the road in question is a very narrow road and the parking of a lorry in front of his shop room will obstruct the functioning of his shop and it will cause traffic block in the road. He relies on Ext.R3(a)newspaper report and Ext.R3(b) photograph of the road in support of his submission. 4. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that the road in question has got only a width of 6.5 metres and it is very difficult for two vehicles to pass through the road simultaneously. Therefore, it was decided to prohibit parking of the vehicles on the above said road between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. The said prohibition is made applicable to all parties including the petitioner and the third respondent. Thus, the writ petition was resisted by WPC.14680/2008 -4 the first respondent stating that the parking is not allowable in the road in question during 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. In view of the stand taken by the first respondent, the petitioner amended the writ petition by incorporating prayer No.3 which reads as follows: “ to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 not to prohibit the petitioner from parking his lorries and other vehicles on the side of Puthangadi road adjacent to the petitioner’s godown for loading and unloading of goods” 5. The petitioner submits, at present there is no decision of the Regional Transport Authority or any other competent authority to make the road in question a no parking area. The petitioner referred to Section 115 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act and also the Rules governing the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Landing Places, Halting Places, Cart Stands And Other Vehicle Stands) Rules, 1995 and WPC.14680/2008 -5 contended that the prohibition of parking of vehicles for the purpose of unloading food grains is unauthorised. 6. Going by Section 115 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, we feel that the same does not deal with prohibition of parking. The said Rule deals with prohibition of driving of vehicles through bridges and roads in certain circumstances. The Kerala Panchayath Raj (Landing Places, Halting Places, Cart Stands And Other vehicle Stands) Rules, 1995 deals with the powers of the Panchayath to establish public landing place, halting place etc for carts, vehicles etc. The said Rules also authorise the Panchayath to prohibit parking around the stand so established. The Rules further authorised the Panchayath to collect parking fees from the persons who parked the vehicles and used the facilities provided by the Panchayath. But no fee can be collected from the persons who used the vehicle stand or its premises only for the purpose of unloading the goods, it is submitted. WPC.14680/2008 -6 The road in question is not a parking area or any stand established by the Grama Panchayath and, therefore, the above contention of the petitioner has no application. The right of the petitioner to use public pathway is subject to reasonable restrictions. The police have powers under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Police Act to maintain law and order. The said power implies the power in appropriate cases, to regulate traffic and prohibit the parking of vehicles for specified hours in busy roads also. In this case no discrimination is made out. All are prohibited from parking their vehicles between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. In many towns, parking is prohibited in busy roads during business hours. The shop owners adjacent to the road in question can unload the goods only during night time. So, having regard to the width of the road, the police decided that no parking should be allowed in the road adjacent to the petitioner’s godown. We think there is no WPC.14680/2008 -7 justification for interfering with the same on the ground that the same is causing inconvenience to the petitioner. If the petitioner’s contention is accepted, every other shop owner can use the road for unloading work in the road and practically the prohibition will become meaningless. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.