B. Vijayan Pillai and others v. State Police Chief, The District Police Chief, Kollam Rural, The District Collector, Kollam, Inspector of Police, Kundara, The Station House Officer, Kundara Police Station, The Regional Transport Officer, Kollam, Kottamkara Grama Panchayath, and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- V. G. Arun, J.
- K. Vinod Chandran, J.
- Judgment Date
- 2019-05-28
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petition is allowed. Respondents 4 and 5 are directed to ensure that respondents 8 to 18 do not park their Mini Lorries in front of the petitioners’ shop rooms, thereby obstructing access and ingress/egress. The authorities are to take appropriate action in accordance with statutory provisions to curb the nuisance, and the matter may involve further action regarding parking allotments. Costs are allocated to the parties as directed by the court.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition allowed; directions issued to prevent unauthorised parking and curb nuisance; costs awarded to parties.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- B. Vijayan Pillai
- Saraswathi L.
- Dr. A. Muhammed Haneefa
- Shahaludeen S.
- Naisher S.
Respondents
- State Police Chief, Police Headquarters, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 014
- The District Police Chief, Kollam Rural, Kollam - 691 506
- The District Collector, Kollam, Kollam - 691 013
- The Inspector of Police, Kundara, Kollam - 691 001
- The Station House Officer, Kundara Police Station, Kollam - 691 001
- The Regional Transport Officer, Kollam, Kollam - 691 013
- The Kottamkara Grama Panchayath, represented by its Secretary, Kollam - 691 005
- Shamsudeen, S/O Muhammad Kunju, Kallukuzhi, Mythri Nagar, Chandanathoppe P.O., Kollam - 691 014
- Sudeendran B., S / O Bahuleyan, Gokulam, Nattuvathukal, Vellimon P.O., Kollam - 691 511
- Ajith Kumar, S/O Haridasan, Karthika Bhavanam, Melo t Kizhakkathil, Peroor, Kollam - 691 005
- Naseer, S/O Abdu Latheef, Thachanthazhikam, Chandanathoppe P.O., Kollam - 691 014
- Kamrudeen, S/O Ibrahimkutty, Kochuvila, Chathinamakulam, Chandanathoppe P.O., Kollam
- thajudeen, S/O Muhammad Kunju, Safeer Manzil, Kottamkara, Chandanathoppe P.O., Kollam - 691 014
- Shajul Hameed, S/O Muhammad Haneefa, Sajeena Manzil, Near Vayalil Veedu, Mekone, Chandanathoppe, Kollam - 691 014
- Vijayan, C/O Shukkoor, Driver, Vilayil Puthen Veedu, Chandanathoppe P.O., Kollam - 691 014
- Shefeek, S/O Aliyarukunju, Kuzhithadathil Veedu, Asian Nagar, Chirayil, Chandanathoppe P.O., Kollam - 691 014
- Anzer, S/O Kasim, Altifat Manzil, Edavattoom, Vellimon P.O., Kollam - 691 511
- Sajeer Sha, Sajeesha Manzil, Peroor, Thattarkonam P.O., Via Karicode, Kollam - 691 005
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri Binu George
- • Sri Pratheesh P.
- • Smt. Hemalatha
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri P.P Thajudheen, SR GP
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition challenges alleged nuisance and obstruction of access caused by unauthorised parking of Mini Lorries in front of petitioners’ shop rooms at Chandanathoppe Junction, Kollam. Petitioners 1–4 operate businesses in the building belonging to petitioner 5 and contend that the parked vehicles in front of the rooms XVIII/281–284 obstruct ingress and egress to their premises and impede customers and the public in general. They seek a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1–7 to provide police protection and to prevent parking by respondents 8–18 in front of their shop rooms, ensuring unobstructed access to the public road. The respondents counter that the space between the tarred road and the building is about 20 meters wide, with trees, where vehicles have parked for over 35 years, and that the parking does not cause nuisance; they have-submitted requests for allotment of a parking area. The court invokes precedents including Noushad M. and others v. State of Kerala and others (2019 (2) KHC 562) and Jayaprasad v. State of Kerala (2018 (2) KHC 812) to analyse private rights to access to the highway. The Division Bench ultimately holds that unauthorised private parking obstructing access is not justified, and directs the relevant authorities to curb the nuisance, allowing the petition with costs.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that unauthorised parking by respondents 8–18 in front of the petitioners’ shop rooms, including doors XVIII/281–284, blocks the entrance, obstructs free ingress and egress, and constitutes a nuisance to their customers and the public. They assert the parking space is not a designated area for those vehicles and that it has deprived them of access to the public road. They pray for mandamus directing respondents 1–7 to provide police protection and to restrain the parking of Mini Lorries by the party respondents and others, pending a proper allotment of parking space. They rely on private rights to access to the highway and urge enforcement of statutory provisions to curb the nuisance. They rely on judgments like Noushad M. and others v. State of Kerala and others (2019(2) KHC 562) to support their claim that private rights cannot be overridden by unauthorised parking. The petition seeks a swift, preventive remedy to restore unobstructed access to their business premises and public road.
Contentions of Respondents
Respondents contend that the space between the tarred portion of the road and the petitioners’ building is about 20 meters wide and has trees, where vehicles have been parked for more than 35 years. They argue that parking under the shade does not hinder business or pedestrians and that their vehicles have sought allotment of a dedicated parking area. They assert that the current parking arrangement existed prior to the petition and that directing a prohibition without an alternate parking plan would adversely affect livelihood. They emphasize that authorities should consider the representation already submitted for allotment of parking space and pending decision, parking may be continued in the existing space. They also point to the need for balancing private rights with public interests, and rely on previous precedents to justify the current practice while suggesting formal allocation as a remedy.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Noushad M. and others v. State of Kerala and others | 2019(2) KHC 562 | Positive | The judgment explicitly endorses the dictum laid down in Noushad's case, stating agreement with its reasoning on private rights to access the highway and nuisance due to unauthorised parking. |
| Jayaprasad v. State of Kerala | 2018 (2) KHC 812 | Mentioned Only | Cited as part of precedents considered but not expressly adopted or discussed in detail; referenced to provide context for the question of private access and parking rights. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against B. Vijayan Pillai and others v. State Police Chief, The District Police Chief, Kollam Rural, The District Collector, Kollam, Inspector of Police, Kundara, The Station House Officer, Kundara Police Station, The Regional Transport Officer, Kollam, Kottamkara Grama Panchayath, and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.