IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 10481 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHANKUMAR, S/O. M.SIVARAMA PILLAI, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT THUNDUVILA VEEDU, M.G.ROAD, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SMT.A.V.PRIYA SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ATTINGAL. 4. AUTORICKSHAW THOZHILALI UNION, TRANSPORT STAND UNIT, ATTINGAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS JOY ALIAS UNDA JOY, CITU OFFICE, BEVERAGES ROAD, ATTINGAL. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL. 6. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL. ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC FOR R2 SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM FOR R4 SRI.DIPU.R FOR R4 SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW FOR R4 SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR FOR R4 SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR FOR R3 SRI.G.SURARSHAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COMING FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.10481 OF 2010(I) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard. 2. Petitioner is an auction purchaser of pay and park facility available in the KSRTC bus stand at Attingal. His compliant is regarding the indiscriminate parking of auto rickshaws operated by the members of the 4th respondent in front of the pay and park facility, which according to the petitioner obstructs ingress and egress of vehicle to his parking area. In the affidavit filed by the KSRTC, it is stated that they are taking every efforts to prevent any obstruction to the ingress and egress to the petitioner's premises. According to the KSRTC, steps are to be taken by respondents 3, 5 and 6. 3. Municipality on the other had entertains a doubt as to whether this is an approved autorickshaw parking area and clarification is awaited from the Regional Transport Officer. The Union on the other hand submits that, it is an approved parking facility, which has been in existence for several years. WPC.No.10481 /2010 :2 : 4. Even if the right of the members of the 4th respondent to park their auto rickshaws is upheld, such parking should be regulated by the authorities in such a manner that the parking does not obstruct the ingress and egress to the petitioner's pay and park facility. Such regulatory action should be taken by the 3rd respondent. 5. Therefore, I direct the 3rd respondent to ensure that the auto parking by the members of the 4th respondent in front of the pay and park facility operated by the petitioner is regulated in such a manner that the ingress and egress to the petitioner's area shall not be obstructed. Necessary action shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.10481 /2010 :3 :