Aleyamma and others v. District Collector, Kollam; Sub Regional Transport Officer, Punalur; Circle Inspector of Police, Pathanapuram; Station House Officer, Pathanapuram Police Station; Pathanapuram Grama Panchayath; Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Pathanapuram; and Sri Farook (WP(C).No.21300 of 2017)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **FRIDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No.21300 of 2017** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 ALEYAMMA AGED 44 YEARS W/O.REJI,PROPRIETOR, CITY BAKERY PATHANAPURAM,KOLLAM, RESIDING AT REJI VILLA,NIRATHUPARA P.O., KOODAL,PATHANAPURAM,KOLLAM** - **2 SABEENA BEEVI W/O.D.SADASIVAN,S.N.FASHION JEWELLERY,PATHANAPURAM,KOLLAM, RESIDING AT SHYJU NIVAS, PERUNADKIZHAKKU P.O.,CHANGANASSERY** - **3 SHYJU.S., S/O.SULAIMAN CITY MOBILES,PATHANAPURAM, RESIDING AT THEKKINKATTILKADA, ENATH P.O.,ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA** - **4 MOHAMMED SIDHIQ, S/O.MAJEED SAHIB NEW CITY MOBILE RESIDING AT THOUFEEK COTTAGE PATHANAPURAM P.O.,KOLLAM** ## **BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM COLLECTORATE,CIVIL STATION P.O., KOLLAM-691 013** - **2 THE SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER PUNALUR, PUNALUR P.O.,KOLLAM-691 305** - **3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PATHANAPURAM,PATHANAPURAM P.O., KOLLAM-689 695** **WP(C).No.21300 of 2017** **2** **4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAPURAM P.O.,KOLLAM 689 695** - **5 THE PATHANAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH PATHANAPURAM P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-689 695** - **6 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D.,PATHANAPURAM P.O, KOLLAM 689 695** - **7 SRI.FAROOK, BABA SAHIB NAGAR KARAMOODU,PATHANAPURAM P.O,KOLLAM 689695** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW SMT.ANITHA M.N. (EKM) SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD GOVT. PLEADER SRI B. JAYASURYA.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.21300 of 2017** **3** ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The writ petitioners, who are shop owners at Pathanapuram junction in Kollam district, have approached this Court aggrieved by the parking of autorickshaws in front of the shop rooms possessed by them. 2. The petitioners state that they are conducting their respective shops on the basis of licences issued by the Pathanapuram Grama Panchayat. Certain autorickshaws are parked regularly in front of their shops obstructing free ingress and egress to the shops. The petitioners, therefore, filed Exts.P3 to P6 representations before appropriate authorities seeking to remove the illegal parking of the autorickshaws. Since the authorities have not taken any action on those complaints, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. The 5[th] respondent-Panchayat has filed a **WP(C).No.21300 of 2017** **4** counter affidavit in the writ petition controverting the averments of the petitioners. According to the Panchayat, footpaths in between the shops and the road have been occupied by merchants. These invasions have also aggravated the traffic congestion and inaccessibility to the business premises of the petitioners and others. The Panchayat committee in its meeting held on 02.01.2012 had discussed about the traffic problems in Pathanapuram town. At that time, 330 autorickshaws were registered in the Panchayat office. The committee decided to request RTO, Punaloor to permit 20 autorickshaws to be parked in front of District Co-operative Bank. The Panchayat has permitted 20 autorickshaws to be parked in front of the District Co-operative Bank, near to the shops of the petitioners. 4. The petitioners have filed reply affidavit stating that the Panchayat has not allocated parking area in front of the shop room of the 1[st] petitioner. Even if such an **WP(C).No.21300 of 2017** **5** allocation is made, it has been made without consultation with the transport department or police department, as provided under the Statute. The petitioners stoutly deny the allegation that they have converted the parking area as room for sale of bakery items. The allegation that the petitioners have occupied the footpath in between the shops and road have been denied by the petitioners. 5. On 14.08.2017, this Court had passed an interim order directing the 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents to ensure that autorickshaws parked in the stand in question are parked with a distance of 4 feet in between the autorickshaws. On 13.10.2017, this Court passed a further order directing that the interim order dated 14.08.2017 is scrupulously followed and it was further directed that the 3[rd] respondent should ensure that the order is implemented. On 29.01.2019, this Court directed the 5[th] respondent-Panchayat to file statement showing the approved parking areas of the Panchayat on Punalur - **WP(C).No.21300 of 2017** **6** Muvattupuzha road in Pathanapuram area, within two weeks. No statement is seen filed. 6. The petitioners would submit that in the Division Bench judgment in _**Jayaprasad K.B. v. State of Kerala and others** [2018 (2) KHC 812],_ this Court has held that parking causing hindrance of ingress and egress to the buildings cannot be permitted. Counsel for the petitioners also relies on the judgment in _**Joseph v. District Magistrate** [1996 (2) KLT 490],_ which has laid down that a person having land adjacent to a highway has the right of access to the highway at any point. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the 5[th] respondent-Panchayat argued that the public interest requires that sufficient autorickshaws are made available near the Pathanapuram junction so that the public are not put to any disadvantage. The learned Standing Counsel argued that the interim orders passed by this Court have been scrupulously followed and autorickshaws are parked **WP(C).No.21300 of 2017** **7** on the right side leaving sufficient space in between. 8. The counsel appearing for the 7[th] respondent submitted that the petitioners are taking advantage by challenging the parking of autorickshaws in front of their shops. Parking of autorickshaws in the area in question is highly necessary taking into account the public interest. The Panchayat and other authorities have permitted the autorickshaws to be parked in the area in question. The area in question falls opposite to the KSRTC bus stand and it is taking into account the requirement of the general public, the autorickshaws are permitted to be parked. This writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed, it is contended. 9. I have heard the counsel on either side and perused the pleadings. 10. It is trite law that a person legally occupying a premise adjacent to a public road has right to access the public road from any point of the premises. Here, the **WP(C).No.21300 of 2017** **8** petitioners are running commercial shops. It is necessary for such commercial establishments that free access to their shops and ingress and egress are not blocked by any persons on a permanent basis. This Court has held in **Joseph** ( _supra_ ) that persons having land adjacent to a highway have a right of access to highway from any point of their property. Subsequently, in _**Jayaprakash** (supra),_ a Division Bench of this Court considered the case of parking taxies and autorickshaws in front of the building owned by the petitioner therein and held that such hindrance to ingress and egress to the building should not be permitted by the authorities. 11. In the light of the settled law and pronouncement of judgments of this Court, I find that the Panchayat or authorised drivers cannot insist that autorickshaws should be permitted to be parked in front of the shops of the petitioners, which they are occupying legally. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to **WP(C).No.21300 of 2017** **9** the respondents to ensure that no autorickshaws are parked in front of the shop rooms of the petitioners. 12. The respondents have a case that the shop owners in the area have made illegal encroachment on the public road for the conduct of their business and this illegal encroachment is also causing problem for the general public. If such illegal encroachments do not exist, parking of autorickshaws will not cause any hindrance, contends the respondents. It is made clear that if there are illegal encroachment on the public road by shop owners, the competent authorities will be at liberty to act in accordance with law. It is also made clear that this judgment will not preclude the drivers from parking their autorickshaws at approved places for parking, other than in front of the shops of the petitioners. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/15.03.2019 **WP(C).No.21300 of 2017** **10** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.A3321/15-16 DATED 04/02/2016 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P1(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED 23/06/2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT OT THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P1(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14/03/2016 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER EXHIBIT P1(C) THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.B2116/17-18 DATED 01/06/2017 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PARKING OF THE AUTORICKSHAWS BY THE PARTY RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS OBSTRUCTING THE FREE INGRESS AND EGRESS OF THE PETITIONERS SHOW ROOM** - **EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07/06/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND ITS RECEIPT.** - **EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07/06/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07/06/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07/06/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT**