IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28143 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.'SAID @ SAIDALAVI, S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, AGED 49 YEARS, MATTARA VEEDU, PARIS TOWER, MEPPADI P.O., WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY, MEPPADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MEPPADI, WAYANAD. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEPPADI POLICE STATION, MEPPADI, WAYANAD. BY GP I V PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 28143 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has erected a building. It houses different commercial premises. The petitioner's complaint is that autorikshaws have been indiscriminately parked as if his entire road frontage is an unauthorised autorikshaw stand. While the petitioner's right for ingress and egress to his building has to be protected and his commercial interests of putting the building to optimum use has to be ensured, the rights of those why ply the autorikshaws also need to be taken care of. They are not parties to this writ petition. The jurisdiction to decide on the question of parking place lies with the authorities under the Motor Vehicle Act. Even if that decision is to be taken with the junction of the panchayat authority, which may have a say in relation to cart stand and parking places, a pragmatic decision has to be taken because the rights of those who are able to put up commercial buildings have to be balanced with the entitlement of those who cannot afford to do that and have to provide livelihood even by Wpc 28143/2009 2 plying vehicles on hire basis. It is also necessary that there is a feasible atmosphere for the smooth running of divergent interests in the society. The panchayat being at the grass root level, has to ensure that this works. For that reason, the first respondent is directed to take up the representation of the petitioner, bring it to the attention of the competent authority in terms of the Motor Vehicle Act and have appropriate conference convened and the matter settled amicably, if necessary, by earmarking appropriate parking place for the autorikshaws. Let a final decision follow within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/8/10