IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23587 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.VINOJ, S/O.KUNJAN PILLAI, ANI NIVAS, MAVADI POST, POOVATHOOR WEST, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR. 3. THE SECRETARY, NADUVATOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY GP I V PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 23587 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner took a room near Puthoor Mandapam junction in Kottarakkara-Karunagappally road for rent in 2007, obtained a shop licence and is carrying on the activity of dealings in spares of Television sets. It appears that he also deals with mobile phones. In 2009, he made Ext.P4 representation stating that autorikshaws are being parked in front of his shop and because there is no foot-path, there is inconvenience. He seeks a direction for disposal of that representation. He states in Ext.P4 that in an important junction where the road is quite narrow, it is not feasible to park autorikshaws, particularly when there is no authorised autoriskshaw stand nearby that area. He has further pointed out in Ext.P4 that Indian Bank, Triveni Super market etc and also a bus stop are put to inconvenience by the parking of the autorikshaws. 2. In a crowded junction, which appears to be the meeting point of roads from different locations, one cannot but expect the Wpc 23587/2009 2 facility of autorikshaw available to the commuters. It is not among the mandatory duties of the panchayat to provide autorikshaw stand. It would also be not practically feasible to suggest that autorickshaws should be parked far away from where people normally would require autorikshaws. 3. I am afraid that if this court were to direct consideration of Ext.P4 and P5 representations, as sought for by the petitioner, that would only create inconvenience for the public and may even lead to a law and order situation. I am not inclined to issue any direction. Writ petition fails. However, it is clarified that the dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the panchayat authorities or revenue authorities, as also the motor vehicle authorities and the police taking such decision as may be necessary, if called for. Subject to the aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/19/8