IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 28566 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- JOSE T. JOHN, S/O.JOHN, THONAKKARA PARA VEETTIL, POOVARANI KARA, KOZHUVANAL POST, MEENACHIL VILLAGE AND TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALA-686575. 2. KOZHUVANAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOZHUVANAL POST-686523, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY, KOZHUVANAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOZHUVANAL POST-686523. 4. C.M.MATHEW ALIAS APPACHAN, CHOORAKKAL HOUSE, KOZHUVANAL POST-686523, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.S.MANU FOR R4 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.28566/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH. EXT.P2: PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P2(a): PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P2(b): PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P2(c): PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P3: PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P3(a): PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.8.2010 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 30.8.2010 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT 27.9.2010 BY THE SECRETARY. EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH. EXTS. OF R1 ANNEXURE 1: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE PANCHAYAT DT 15.11.2000. EXTS. OF R4 EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE NTOICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDEN TPANCHAYAT FIXING VEHICLE STANDS. EXT.R4(b): TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE BOARD. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28566 OF 2010 (U) ===================== Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a tenant of Room Nos.13/91C and 91D of Chollampuzha Building of the 2nd respondent Grama Panchayat. The building is situated at a place called Kozhuvanal in Kottayam District on the side of Kodungoor Pala Road. Petitioner contends that right in front of his shop rooms, taxi vehicles are being parked obstructing free ingress and egress from the main road to the petitioner's shops. Along with the reply affidavit, he has also produced Ext.P6, a reply obtained from the Secretary of the respondent Panchayat, obtained under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, in which, it is stated that, after reference to the minutes from 1999, he has not been in a position to trace any decision of the Panchayat authorizing vehicle parking in the area in question. 2. Going by the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the responsibility of providing parking area is that of respondents 2 and 3 Panchayat. However despite service of notice from this Court, respondents 2 and 3 did not show the WPC No. 28566/10 :2 : responsibility to appear and assist this Court to render a decision in this writ petition. The irresponsibility shown by respondents 2 and 3 needs to be condemned and I do so. 3. 1st respondent has filed a statement in this Court. Going by the statement, at least from 2000, vehicles are being parked in the area in question, using it as a taxi stand. He has produced as Annexure I, notice published by the respondent Panchayat regulating the taxi parking in the area. He has also stated that a Board showing the area as taxi stand has been planted in the area. In the statement, it is also stated that, after the writ petition was filed, taxi drivers were summoned and were instructed to park their vehicles leaving enough space for the free ingress and egress to the petitioner's shops and to provide place for parking of other vehicles in front of the petitioner's shop rooms. He has also stated that instructions have been given to ensure that space is provided for the petitioner for loading and unloading materials from and into his shop. It is also stated that 1st respondent has contacted respondents 2 and 3 suggesting to WPC No. 28566/10 :3 : shift the taxi stand from the place, and that, he has been informed that, in view of the upcoming Panchayat elections, they could not do anything and that he has been assured that a concrete solution to the problem will be found after the elections are over. 4. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. According to him, on the strength of the notice referred to above, area has been designated as a taxi stand, and that, therefore, they are entitled to park their vehicles. It is stated that, it was only on account of ill motives that the petitioner has approached this Court to get the taxi stand shifted from the area in question. 5. First of all, petitioner being an occupant of the two rooms mentioned above, where he is carrying on his business activities, cannot be denied his access to the highway in question. If that is obstructed, necessarily respondents 1 and 3 are obliged to interfere and make provisions for the same. In this case, going by the materials produced and the pleadings of the respondents themselves, it is obvious that, a taxi stand is functioning right in WPC No. 28566/10 :4 : front of the petitioner's shop. Therefore, there is substance in the grievance of the petitioner that, on account of the taxi stand in existence at its present location, ingress and egress to his shop is obstructed. However, for several years, the area in question is being used as taxi stand, and therefore, an order for the immediate shifting is impractical. In that sense, I feel until the Panchayat finds out a concrete solution as offered by them to the 1st respondent, parking in the area should be regulated and it should be ensured by the 1st respondent as mentioned in para 2 of his statement. 6. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions; 1) That the 1st respondent will ensure that the vehicle parking at the present place is done leaving enough space for the free ingress and egress for the petitioner's shop and provision is also available for parking the vehicles of the petitioner and also for parking vehicles for loading and unloading from the petitioner's shops. WPC No. 28566/10 :5 : 2) The 2nd and 3rd respondent should take necessary steps for shifting the taxi stand recognizing the fact that the vehicle parking now available is in a commercial area of the Panchayat by relocating the same to a less inconvenient place. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp