IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 18185 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- MAR ADHAI SLEEHA CHURCH, CHURCH OF THE EAST, PARAVTTANI, THRISSUR REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE JOJU P. VARGHESE, POOVATHUNKAL, KALATHODE, OLLUKKARA.P.O, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SMT.SURYA SASI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, (BRIDES & ROADS), SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, THRISSUR. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS), THRISSUR. 5. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THRISSUR. 6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR. 7. GIREESH, SECRETARY, CITU, GOODS AUTO UNION, PARAVATTANI, RESIDING AT PALAKUNNATH, AISWARYA STREET, NELLIKUNNU KARA, EAST FORT.P.O, THRISSUR ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION FOR R5 SRI.M.R.DHANIL FOR R5 SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R7 SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR FOR R7 SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE FOR R7 SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.DILIP MOHAN FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 18185/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.16.2.2008. P2. COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD P3. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.28.3.08. P4. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.11.4.08. P5. COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARDS. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.18185 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 7th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed by a church. They have constructed a commercial building complying with all statutory provisions. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the 7th respondent and members of his union are illegally blocking the road margin in front of the said commercial building by parking goods vehicles and constructing a shed thereon. Despite Exts.P1 and P4 representations, respondents 2 to 6 are not taking any steps to remove the shed, is the contention raised in the writ petition. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ direction or order directing respondents 1 to 6 to take necessary action to remove the unauthorised parking of goods vehicles and the illegally constructed shed in front of the commercial building and the shrine of the petitioner Church; and ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ direction or order directing respondents 1 to 6 to consider Exhibit P1 & P4 and take necessary action to remove the unauthorised parking of goods vehicles and the illegally constructed shed in front of the commercial building and the shrine of the petitioner Church; and iii) issue such other order or directions as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper.” 2. The 7th respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the union has been parking goods vehicles by the side of the national highway for over 20 years and, therefore, the petitioner 2 cannot now prevent them from parking their vehicles by the side of the national highway. 3. The corporation would contend that since the road is a PWD road, they are not necessary party to the writ petition. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit admitting parking of the autorickshwas and construction of the shed. Their contention is that such parking and the shed would not create any hindrance for free access to the shopping complex or to the church. 4. I am surprised at the stand of the 4th respondent. When every building owner has a right to access to the road in front of their shop, I do not think that the 4th respondent can say that since there is no hindrance, there can be no objection to the parking of the vehicles and construction of a shed in front of the shopping complex of the petitioner. I am of opinion that it is the bounden duty of respondents 2 to 6 to see that parking or constriction of sheds are avoided in front of any building by the side of the national highway or any other road. In fact I am of opinion that no such activity can be permitted by the side of the National Highway, which is intended for traffic and not for parking and construction of shed. So also, nobody has a right to impinge on the right of the owners of the buildings for free access from the road to their buildings. Accordingly, respondents 2 to 6 are directed to see that the shed in front of the petitioner's building is 3 removed immediately and that no parking is done in front of the building of the petitioner or on any part of the highway either by the 7th respondent or anybodyelse. 5. I am also surprised at the contention of the Corporation that since it is a PWD road, they have nothing to do with the matter. Under the Kerala Municipality Act, it is a statutory duty of the Corporation to provide appropriate parking places for goods vehicles and other vehicles. It is because they do not provide parking spaces that the people are parking vehicles by the side of the road. Therefore, the Corporation shall take adequate steps to provide parking places for vehicles within the Corporation area, but that shall not be by the side of or on the margin of any road. With the above directions to respondents 2 to 6, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge