IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 16934 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED KASIM PILLAI, KHADEEJA BUILDING, MARKET JUNCTION, NEDUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY, NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPALITY, NEDUMANGAD P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695021. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695021. 3. JAYACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.SANKARA PILLAI, ANNATHU BHAVAN, NETTIRACHIRA, KARIPOOR VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD PO, TRIVANDRUM- 695021. 4. SAJI, S/O.THOMSON,PUNNAVELIKONATHU VEEDU PUNNAVELIKONAM, J.T.S.JUNCTION, MANCHA, NEDUMANGAD P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695021. 5. RAJENDRAN, AREA SECRETARY, C.I.T.U. MOTOR WORKERS UNION, CHIRATHALAKKAL, MELAMCODE, PAZHANKUTTY, NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM-695021. ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R-5 SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR FOR R-5 SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M.CHARISMA FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS OF THE PROPERTIES EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C). No. 16934 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The petitioner who is conducting business under the name and style Latheefa Fancy in a room in a shopping complex within the area of Nedumangad Municipality has approached this Court complaining that autorickshaw and other vehicles are parking in front of his shop with the result that the petitioner and his family members who are residing in the first floor of the building, petitioner's customers and the petitioner's employees are unable even to have access to the business premise and also the residential premise. The various photographs produced along with the writ petition will show that the allegations of the petitioner are prima facie correct. According to Mr. M. Dinesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no authorised parking stand in front of his building for autorickshaws or for any WP(C).16934/11 -2- other vehicles. According to him, the authorised parking stand established by the Municipality is in front of Kesavan Nair Memorial Shopping Complex, which is very near to the petitioner's building. 2. Counter affidavits have been filed by the party respondents as well as by the Municipality. The Municipality through its counter affidavit accepts the stand of the petitioner that the Municipality has not established any parking stand for autorickshaws or other vehicles in front of the petitioner's building. So also, the case of the petitioner that the Municipality has established a parking stand in front of Kesavan Nair Memorial Shopping Complex is admitted. The party respondents' contention is one of total denial. Sri.M.Dinesh, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw our attention to the various exhibits particularly, the photographs and submit that the case pleaded is correct. Sri. P. Ramakrishnan, standing counsel for the Municipality WP(C).16934/11 -3- submitted that though it is true that the Municipality has not established any parking stand in front of the petitioner's building, the parking stand established by the Municipality in front of Kesavan Nair Memorial Shopping Complex is intended for 3 wheeler goods vehicles only. In the vicinity of the petitioner's building there is no stand established by the Municipality for passenger autorickshaw. The counsel for the party respondent would make submissions on the basis of the counter affidavit. 3. Having regard to the submissions addressed, the pleadings raised and the materials produced, we feel that the grievance voiced by the petitioner is genuine. If autorickshaws are allowed to be parked in front of the petitioner's shop in the manner which they are seen parked in the photographs produced it will be very difficult for the petitioner, his family members, his customers, his employees to access not only to the shop building but also WP(C).16934/11 -4- the residential house in the upstairs. At the same time we notice that the stand established by the Municipality in front of Kesavan Nair Memorial Shopping Complex is exclusively for goods vehicles. We also notice the submission of Mr. Ramakrishnan that in the vicinity of the petitioner's building there is no stand established for parking autorickshaw and that the stand established for parking autorickshaws is far away. We notice from the photographs themselves that there is some space between the road margin and the petitioner's building. But that does not mean that the said portion can be utilised by the autorickshaws in the locality for parking. 4. We dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to ensure that no autorickshaws or other vehicles are parked in front of the building in the occupation of the petitioner in such a manner as to obstruct free access to the petitioner's shop building and residential building in WP(C).16934/11 -5- the first floor, for petitioner, his family members, his workers and his customers. If it is reported that vehicles are parked in a manner as to obstruct such access, the second respondent will take immediate action and remove the obstructing vehicles. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-