IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 6607 of 2008(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.S.MENON, ADVOCATE, HOUSE NO.44/120, 2ND BYE LANE, S.R.M.ROAD, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MENON (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOCHI CITY, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008,THE COURT ON 25/03/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 6607 OF 2008 J ================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to prohibit parking of vehicles on the second Bye-lane starting from Sastha Temple S.R.M.Road leading to Railway Station and to direct the police to take action against those who are violating the law. 2. Petitioner submits that his house is abutting Bye-lane No.2 from S.R.M Road leading to the Town Railway station. According to him, in front of his house, there is an opening from the Railway Station where autorikshaws, taxies, tempo vans etc are parked waiting for passengers and goods from the trains that stop at the railway station. Though this is not an authorised parking place, petitioner submits that in view of the parking of the vehicles as above, his ingress and egress and also his peaceful living in his residential house is affected. Complaining of the unauthorised parking and the disturbances that is caused, petitioner has filed Ext.P1 complaint before the 2nd respondent. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent has not taken any action on Ext.P1. Based on these averments, this writ petition has been filed. WPC No. 6607/08 :2 : 3. Petitioner submits that on account of the unauthorised parking of the vehicles as above, petitioner is not in a position to have access to the Bye-lane. He is relying on the judgments of this court reported in Tanoor Panchayat v. Kunhiamutty (1978 KLT 813) and Joseph v. District Magistrate (1996 (2) KLT 490). While in the first case, this court has recognised the right of an owner of land adjoining a highway his private right to access to such highway at any point at which his land touches the highway, the decision reported in 1996(2) KLT 490 seems to be more appropriate to the facts of this case. That was a case where this court dealt with the unauthorised vehicle parking, affecting the right of the petitioner therein to carry on his trade. After discussing the law on the point, this court held that allowing taxi operators who are engaged in their business of parking their vehicles permanently in front of the petitioner's workshop on the side of the national highway is an invasion of the private right of the petitioner to have access to the national highway. 4. In this case, it is the petitioner's contention that on account of the parking of the vehicles, he is not in a position to have access to the Bye-lane that leads to his house. Further, he also pleads that on account of the disturbances that are caused, his fundamental right under Article 21 WPC No. 6607/08 :3 : of the Constitution is also violated. 5. If as stated by the petitioner, the parking of the vehicles in question is unauthorised, that certainly calls for appropriate action. It is true that the taxi operators and others who park the vehicle do have their right to carry on their trade. But then in the process of exercising their fundamental right, they are not entitled to violate the petitioner's fundamental rights nor can anybody force the petitioner to sacrifice his fundamental right for the sake of upholding somebody elses fundamental rights. This necessarily calls for balancing the rights to avoid hardships to the parties. 6. The petitioner has already moved the 2nd respondent being the appropriate authority in this matter. Learned Government Pleader during the course of the submissions had confirmed receipt of Ext.P1 complaint from the petitioner. The 2nd respondent therefore will take note of Ext.P1 in the light of the observations made herein above and take appropriate action in the matter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp