IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WA.No. 1229 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.14677/2000 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP ------------------------------ K.KUMAR, S/O. A.K.SAMI, CHAKATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR SUB STATION, VYTTILA.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN OP ------------------------------- 1. SRI. NARAYANAN KAMMATH, PARTNER OF JAYALAKSHMI SILKS AND SAREES, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KANAYANNUR. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., REVENUE(A) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 5. COCHIN CORPORATION, REP BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN FOR R1 G.P. SRI.LAKSHMI NARAYAN FOR R2 TO R4 ADV. SRI.ASHOK M.CHERIAN,SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R5 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.R. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1229 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed by the petitioner in the W.P.(C) against judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition. The allegation of the appellant is that the first respondent in the Writ Appeal who is running a textile shop on M.G.Road side, has encroached upon 864 sq. links of Government land. Government Pleader and counsel for the first respondent after taking instruction submitted that encroachment was 48 sq. metres and the same was surrendered by the first respondent. Appellant's case is that he has sought for an assignment of the land in front of first respondent's shop for conducting a bunk shop. According to the appellant, he was once conducting Bunk shop there and was later evicted by the Corporation. We do not find any justification to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge because in the first place, Bunk shop should not 2 be permitted in front of a textile shop which the first respondent is running. If there is any suitable land of the Corporation, it is for the appellant to apply for licence or request for assignment for conducting Bunk shop. The vacant land surrendered to the Government or to the Corporation can be licensed by them for car parking on collection of charges. We further endorse the view expressed by the Single Judge that nothing should be permitted in front of business houses to obstruct their business. Short of this, it is for the Government or the Corporation to collect charges for parking facilities provided in Government land, whether it be in front of shops or not. Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms