Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 325 (KER)

Jayaprasad v. State of Kerala

2018-04-10

ASHOK MENON, K.VINOD CHANDRAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : K. Vinod Chandran, J. 1. The petitioner is concerned with the hindrance of ingress and egress into his building, by reason of regular parking of the auto-rickshaws in front of his building. The photographs are produced at Ext.P5 to show the obstruction caused. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for police protection to the life and property of the petitioner and to remove the parking of vehicles in front of the building owned by the petitioner situated on the southern side of M.C. Road, having building Nos.XIV/314 to XIV/327 of Chengannur Municipality. We do not think there is any life threat involved. 2. Notice was issued to the respondents and the party respondents appeared and contended that earlier this Court on the request of another person had directed that it will be ensured that auto-rickshaws are not parked in unauthorised areas as also ordered the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) to consider establishment of authorised parking area, without causing difficulty to the public, with notice to the Secretary of the Municipality. The RTA has also passed Ext.R7(b), directing the number of vehicles to be parked in the authorised parking space as notified by the RTA. At the Government Hospital Junction, five vehicles have been permitted to park and the parking is carried on in accordance with the orders of the RTA, is the specific contention. A brief look at the photographs produced by the petitioner itself would indicate that there are more vehicles than five in front of the petitioner's building. 3. It was also the contention of the petitioner that the Government Hospital, where the parking was allowed, is far removed from the petitioner's shop and the parking space authorised at the Government Hospital junction cannot be converted to be a parking space on the road in front of the petitioner's building. We hence thought it fit that an Advocate Commissioner inspects the property; to ascertain the ground realities and apprise us of the actual situation. The Commissioner has filed a report dated 20-03-2018. The Commissioner was also assisted by the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department, the Chengannur Municipality and the Circle Inspector of Police. The Commissioner specifically indicates that the parking of vehicles in front of the petitioner's shop causes obstruction to the ingress and egress to the customers into the building, as also results in traffic congestion. The Commissioner was also assisted by the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department, the Chengannur Municipality and the Circle Inspector of Police. The Commissioner specifically indicates that the parking of vehicles in front of the petitioner's shop causes obstruction to the ingress and egress to the customers into the building, as also results in traffic congestion. It is pointed out that the stage carriages plying on the abutting road, stops in front of the petitioner's building to allow the passengers to board and alight; for reason of the presence of auto-rickshaws on that side of the road. It is also pointed out that Government Hospital is at a distance of 130 metres from the petitioner's building. 4. The Government Hospital is on the northern side of the M.C.Road and the petitioner's building is on the southern side. The Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, who accompanied the Commissioner had specifically pointed out a puramboke land, which is 70 meters away from the Government Hospital and 50 metres from the present auto-rickshaw stand. The Commissioner also submits that there were other vehicles parked in the puramboke property and in the Commissioner's opinion, the lie and nature of the property indicates that it cannot be put to any other use. It is also submitted that the parking of the auto-rickshaws in the puramboke property would in fact inure to the benefit of the patients, who visit the Government Hospital. 5. We see that the parking as provided by the RTA at the General Hospital Junction is without specifying the exact space where it has to be parked. Obviously, the parking now carried on in front of the petitioner's building, as revealed from the photographs as also the report of the Commissioner, indicates obstruction to the ingress and egress and also to the traffic through the M.C.Road. We hence direct the respondent-police to ensure that there are no auto-rickshaws parked in front of petitioner's building. We can see from the photographs and also from the report of the Commissioner that a board has been placed, in front of the petitioners shop, indicating that location to be an auto-rickshaw stand, prohibiting parking of any other vehicles. Obviously, the vehicles of the persons, who come to petitioner's building, is thus prohibited from being parked in front of the building. The board is said to be fixed without any authority. Obviously, the vehicles of the persons, who come to petitioner's building, is thus prohibited from being parked in front of the building. The board is said to be fixed without any authority. Neither is it of the Municipality nor of the Police. The police shall see that the Board is removed immediately. 6. The auto-rickshaws shall be permitted to park in the puramboke property for the time being, subject to any other decision taken by the RTA, in consultation with the Municipality. It is made clear that even in the puramboke property, only five vehicles can be parked. We also observe that the temporary arrangement of parking of auto-rickshaws in the puramboke property does not give them any right to claim parking for eternity in the property. If the Government has to use that property for any other purpose, it would be possible for the Government to remove the auto-rickshaws and direct the RTA to provide for another parking space. With these observations, the Writ petition is allowed. No costs.