IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 22632 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SUNIL KUMAR, SOWPARNIKA, KALLARA, TIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. (ROAD AND BRIDGES), NEDUMANGAD, TIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KALLARA GRAMMA PANCHAYAT- REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT OFFICE, KALLARA. 3. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANGODU POLICE STATION, KALLARA. ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.22632/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: SKETCH SHOWING LIE AND NATURE OF SREYAS JUNCTION PRODUCED BY 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT. EXT.P2: LOCATION PLAN OF PETITIONER'S BUILDINGS. EXT.P3: RESOLUTION NO.21 DT 5.2.2005 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONENT PANCHAYAT GIVING ITS DECISION. EXT.P4: LETTER ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT 5.2.2005 TO INITIATE EMERGENCY STEPS TO SOLVE TRAFFIC CONGESTION. EXT.P5: THIS HON'BLE COURT'S JUDGMETN IN WPC NO.9671/05 DT 20.7.2005 (ISSUED WITH A COC NO.857/05) EXT.P6: APPLICATION MADE BY PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT FOR INFORMATION. EXT.P7: LETTER DT 11.11.2005 BY 2ND RESPONDNENT TO SUB INSPECTOR OF LOCAL POLICE. EXT.P8: REPRESNETATION MADE BY 7 OCCUPANTS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT REGARDING OBSTRUCTION CAUSED IN FRONT OF THEIR SHOP ROOMS. EXTS.OF R2 EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.11 OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE HELD ON 18.4.2005. EXT.R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.12 OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE HELD ON 18.4.2005. EXT.R2(c): TRUE COPY OFHTE LETTER DT 29.4.2005 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE. EXT.R2(d): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 29.4.2005 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE KERALA STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER. EXT.R2(e): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 17.7.2006 IN WPC NO.17604/06 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. WPC NO.22632/08 -2- EXT.R2(f): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 28.11.2006 IN WPC NO.35911/2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R2(g): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 1.1.2008 FILED BY THE MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. EXT.R2(h): TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DT 5.2.2008 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO EXT.R2(g): EXT.R2(i): PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE MARKING OF PARKING SPACES. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 22632 OF 2008 (T) ===================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner of shops rooms situated in Kallara Grama Panchayat. His grievance is regarding the unauthorised parking of vehicle obstructing the ingress and egress to his shop rooms. 2. It is seen that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.9671/05. Interim orders were passed and complaining of disobedience of those directions, petitioner filed COC 857/05. Both proceedings were disposed of by Ext.P5 common judgment. A reading of the judgment shows that the parking in the area in question was an authorised one by the Panchayat and therefore this Court declined to prohibit the parking as sought for by the petitioner. However, finding that there is substance in the complaint that his ingress and egress are obstructed, this Court directed the Panchayat to mark such places, and put board against parking in that area. It was also directed that if there is violation, the petitioner can report the matter to the concerned Police Officer. With these direction, the WPC 22632/08 :2 : contempt was also closed. 3. Thereafter also, according to the petitioner, the vehicle parking was continuing as it was earlier and therefore, he moved Ext.P9 before the 1st respondent. In this writ petition, what he pleads is that the 1st respondent is also an authority to deal with the problem and therefore the 1st respondent should be directed to take action on Ext.P9. 4. The Panchayat has filed a detailed counter affidavit. According to them, as is evident from Ext.P5 judgment of this Court referred to above, the parking in the area is an authorised one. It is stated that pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment, the area in question was marked for regulating parking of the vehicles. Inspite of what they have done, Panchayat was conscious of the fact that the directions were not complied with in full and therefore the Panchayat made Ext.P7 complaint to the police and passed Ext.R2(a) resolution to take appropriate remedial action. 5. Panchayat also has referred me to Ext.R2(e) judgment rendered by this Court in WP(C) No.17604/2006 filed by the Panchayat complaining that the police authorities are indifferent to maintain the regulated parking at various places and prevent illegal parallel services. That writ petition was disposed of WPC 22632/08 :3 : recording the submission made on behalf of the respondents therein about the steps they have taken and ensuring compliance with the steps taken by the Panchayat and further directing that steps shall be continued to be taken. Panchayat has also brought to my notice Ext.R2(f), a judgment rendered by this Court in WP (C) No 35911/05 filed by yet another shop keeper complaining of unregulated parking obstructing his ingress and egress. In that judgment, this Court, accepting the right of the drivers of autorickshaws and taxies to park vehicles on the sides of public road held that the ingress and egress of the customers of the petitioners therein shall not be obstructed and that if there is any obstruction, the Sub Inspector of Police could be alerted for interference. Panchayat has also produced before me as Ext.R2 (g) a complaint made by the mother of the petitioner before the Human Rights Commission, which according to the Panchayat was also closed. Therefore, in substance, the contention of the Panchayat is that the area in question is an authorized vehicle parking area and in order to ensure regulated vehicle parking, Panchayat has taken all necessary steps. 6. The petitioner complains that despite whatever is claimed to have been done by the Panchayat, there has not been WPC 22632/08 :4 : any redressal of his grievance, in as much as the vehicle parking continues as indisciplined as before. It need not be stated again that as in the case of the drivers of autorickshaws and taxi cars, shop keepers and their customers are also entitled to use the highways and its sides not only for parking vehicles, but also for their movements. If by reason of parking of the vehicles, the movement of the pedestrians or the customers of the shops is obstructed, that necessarily calls for appropriate action. 7. In this case, since the Panchayat has already taken certain action as noticed above, I do not think it necessary for this Court to again interfere and issue any further directions. 8. In my view, the Panchayat should continue to take action as it has been doing and in addition to this, if the petitioner or anybody else for that matter, has any complaint that the autorickshaw drivers or taxi drivers are violating the directions of the Panchayat, it will be open to them to approach either the Panchayat or the 3rd respondent, who shall thereupon take appropriate action to redress their grievance. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp