IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 1991 of 2009 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18185/2008 Dated 07/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT/7TH RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- GIREESH, SECRETARY, CITU, GOODS AUTO UNION, PARAVATTANI, RESIDING AT PALAKUNNATH, AISHWARYA STREET, NELLIKUNNU KARA, EAST FORT P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MAR ADHAI SLEEHA CHURCH, CHURCH OF THE EAST, PARAVATTANI, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE JOJU P.VARGHESE, POOVATHUNKAL, KALATHODE OLLUKARA P.O., THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (BRIDGES AND ROADS) SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, THRISSUR. 5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS) THRISSUR. 6. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THRISSUR. 7. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR. R1 BY SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION R4 BY ADV.SRI.THOMAS ANTONY R2, R3, R5 & R7 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.1991 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. This writ appeal is at the instance of respondent No.7 in W.P.(C) No.18185 of 2008. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the prayer made by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 herein and directed the Corporation of Thrissur to take adequate steps to provide parking place for goods vehicles within the Corporation area avoiding the margins of the PWD road obstructing passage of vehicles and free movement of pedestrians. 2. The writ petitioner had contended before the learned Single Judge that goods vehicles and autorickshaws are now being parked blocking the road margin in front of the commercial building belonging to the petitioner. A shed had also been constructed there by the drivers of those vehicles. 3. In the counter affidavit, the Corporation admitted that autorickshaws and goods vehicles were being parked in front of the W.A.No.1991 of 2009. - 2 - shopping complex in question abutting the road margin. According to the Corporation, parking of these vehicles and existence of the shed would not create any hindrance for the vehicles of the customers or believers to the shopping complex and the church under the control of the writ petitioner. 4. The appellant who is the secretary of Goods Auto Union contended in his counter affidavit that the members of the union had been parking their vehicles by the side of the PWD road for over twenty years and therefore, the petitioner cannot prevent them from doing so since the PWD road does not belong to the petitioner. 5. The learned Single Judge after adverting to the above and other contentions raised by the Corporation and the appellant/respondent No.7, took the view that the action of the Corporation in refusing to provide a separate parking area for the autorickshaws and goods vehicles within its limits is totally unjustified. The learned Judge reminded the Corporation that going by the provisions contained in the Kerala Municipalities Act, the Corporation was duty bound to provide parking facilities for W.A.No.1991 of 2009. - 3 - autorickshaws, goods vehicles, etc. It was also noticed by the learned Judge that the vehicles were now being allowed to be parked in front of the shopping complex belonging to the petitioner blocking free ingress and egress of not only the vehicles, but members of the public as well. It was in the above circumstances that the learned Single Judge directed the Corporation to take adequate steps to provide separate parking place for goods vehicles and alerted the Corporation further that parking of such vehicles shall not be permitted on the road margin. 6. It may at once be noticed that the Corporation has not filed appeal against the above judgment. As mentioned earlier, this writ appeal is at the instance of the union representing the drivers of autorickshaws and goods vehicles. We have already referred to the contentions raised by them in the counter affidavit. 7. When this writ appeal came up for consideration earlier, we had asked the learned counsel for the appellant as to under what authority the Union had constructed a shed on the margin of the PWD road. Learned counsel very fairly conceded that it was done without obtaining permission from the competent authority. W.A.No.1991 of 2009. - 4 - However, pending the appeal, the shed has been demolished. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submits that the area in front of the shopping complex in question belongs to the Corporation and therefore there can be no objection in public vehicles being parked there. We are unable to agree. 9. No document has been produced before us to show that the so-called parking area in front of the shopping complex belongs to the Corporation. In this context, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has placed reliance on Ext.R6(b) which is a communication from the Village Officer, Ollookkara to the Secretary of the Corporation of Thrissur informing him that the copy of the thandaper register is being forwarded to him. Nothing more nothing less. The above document will not show that the land where goods vehicles are now being parked belongs to the Corporation. 10. As mentioned by us earlier, the Corporation has not challenged the impugned judgment. Therefore, we do not propose to deal with or refer to the various contentions raised by the Corporation in its additional counter affidavit filed before us. W.A.No.1991 of 2009. - 5 - 11. As regards the contention now raised by the appellant before us, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant cannot as of right insist that they are entitled to park their vehicles in front of the shopping complex belonging to the writ petitioner. The contention of the appellant-Union that they are entitled to park their vehicles as of right since they had been doing it for the last 20 years cannot be a ground to allow the above plea. Unless and until the Corporation allocates public parking place for such vehicles, the appellant cannot as of right insist that they ought to be permitted to do so. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the contentions now raised by the appellant. The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns