Geemon George v. The Sub Inspector of Police, Manarcadu Police Station, Kottayam District; The Manarcadu Grama Panchayat; Secretary, Manarcadu Grama Panchayat; Aji P. Kurian; Biju T. Thomas

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 7TH BHADRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.20528 OF 2018(M)** ## **PETITIONER :** **GEEMON GEORGE AGED 45 YEARS S/O GEORGE, GEE GEE VISION STUDIO, MAMOOTTIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.ABY J AUGUSTINE SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANARCADU POLICE**| |---|---| ||**STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686019.**| |**2**|**THE MANARCADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANARCADU P.O.,**| ||**KOTTAYAM - 686 019.**| |**3**|**THE SECRETARY, MANARCADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT,**| ||**MANARCADU P.O., KOTTYAM - 686 019.**| |**4**|**AJI P. KURIAN, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE,**| ||**MANARCADU P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 019.**| |**5**|**BIJU.T. THOMAS., THEVARDIYIL HOUSE,**| ||**MANARCAUD P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 019.**| ||**R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW**| ||**R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP**| **SRI HARISH K.P. - SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-06-2019, THE COURT ON 29-08-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 2 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, who is running a photo studio in the name and style ‘Gee Gee Vision’ within the limits of the 2[nd] respondent Manarcadu Grama Panchayat, on the strength of Ext.P1 licence granted by the 3[rd] respondent, who is the Secretary of that Grama Panchayat, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to take effective and meaningful steps to remove the unauthorisedly parked autorickshaws of respondents 4 and 5 and their men from its present parking place in front of his photo studio to some other parking place assigned by the 2[nd] respondent Grama Panchayat. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner’s photo studio abuts the National Highway-220 from Kottayam to Kumali. The document marked as Ext.P2 is a photograph of the autorickshaws parked in front of petitioner’s photo studio, obstructing ingress and egress to the studio. The petitioner has filed Ext.P3 application dated 23.02.2018 before the 3[rd] respondent, under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking certain information regarding parking of autorickshaws in front of his photo studio. By Ext.P4 W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 3 communication dated 22.03.2018, the Public Information Officer in the office of the 2[nd] respondent Grama Panchayath informed the petitioner that Panchayat has not authorised the parking of the autorickshaws anywhere near the petitioner’s photo studio, on the side of National Highway. Therefore, the petitioner moved Ext.P5 petition before the 1[st] respondent Sub Inspector of Police, Manarcadu Police Station, to take necessary steps to remove the unauthorisedly parked autorickshaws of respondents 4 and 5 and others. The said petition was acknowledged by the 1[st] respondent vide Ext.P6 acknowledgment dated 05.04.2018. However, the 1[st] respondent failed to take steps to remove the unauthorisedly parked autorickshaws in front of the petitioner's photo studio. 3. On 21.06.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court issued urgent notice before admission to respondents 2 to 5 by special messenger. The learned Government Pleader took notice for the 1[st] respondent. 4. On 02.07.2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and also the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 sought time to file counter affidavit. On 12.07.2018, the learned W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 4 Government Pleader, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and also the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 sought further time to file counter affidavit. While adjourning the matter to 30.07.2018, this Court ordered that, if autorickshaws are parked in front of the building, the same shall be done leaving a gap of 5 feet between the autorickshaws, for a period of one month. The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 that the autorickshaws are parked 8 feet away from the building in question, was recorded. 5. A statement has been filed by the 1[st] respondent Station House Officer, Manarcadu Police Station, wherein it has been stated that the autorickshaw stand on the southern side of the National Highway-220 is in existence for the last more than 15 years and there exists a footpath having a width of 5 feet between the road and the petitioner’s studio. There is a zebra crossing marked just in front of the petitioner’s studio and as such, parking of autorickshaws by creating hindrance to the petitioner’s studio is not possible. The 1[st] respondent has always been vigil on maintaining sufficient gap to zebra crossing from the footpath, where no parking is allowed. However, Ext.P2 photograph shows obstructions created by autorickshaws to the W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 5 zebra crossing. It is not normally permitted by police. On receipt of Ext.P5 complaint, a hearing was conducted by the 1[st] respondent. The petitioner as well as respondents 4 and 5 appeared for hearing. On the basis of the decision taken, strict instructions have been given to respondents 4 and 5 not to create any obstruction to the petitioner’s studio. Moreover, such obstruction is not possible as no parking is permissible over the zebra crossing and the 1[st] respondent has given strict instructions in this regard. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 4 and 5 opposing the relief sought for in this writ petition. In the counter affidavit, it is contended that autorickshaws are being parked in Manarcadu Junction without causing any obstruction to ingress and egress to petitioner’s studio and that, respondents 4 and 5 are plying their autorickshaws on the strength of Exts.R4(A) and R4(B) contract carriage permits with parking place as ‘Manarcadu Junction’. Approximately, 150 autorickshaws are issued with contract carriage permits with parking place as Manarcadu Junction. The said stand is in existence for the last 30 years. The studio run by the petitioner is housed in a building named 'Thazhathedathu Buildings' on the side of National W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 6 Highway. Abutting the shutter of the shop room, there is a pavement or passage, which is a part of the building for the customers to freely access the nearby shops. The said pavement has a height of approximately 10 to 20 centimetres from road level and it has a width of approximately 4 to 4.5 feet. Abutting the pavement, there is a footpath for the pedestrians, which is approximately 4 feet in width. After the footpath, the road margin starts. Thus, there exists a pavement and a footpath for free ingress and egress to the shop rooms situated in the building and the distance from the shutter of the shop rooms to road margin is more than 8 feet. In order to substantiate the said fact, few photographs showing the frontage of the petitioner’s studio are placed on record as Exts.R4(C) and R4(D). In the counter affidavit, it has also been stated that autorickshaws are being parked in the road margin, as permitted by the officials of the Motor Vehicles Department, in consultation with the Traffic Police. As per the traffic arrangements currently in force, pursuant to the directions of the Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam as well as the Traffic Police, only five autorickshaws are permitted to be parked in the road margin in front of Thazhathedathu buildings and the remaining W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 7 autorickshaws are parked about 100-150 meters away from the junction, in order to avoid traffic congestion. When, one out of the five autorickshaws parked in the road margin in front of Thazhathedathu buildings leaves the stand another autorickshaw parked behind the junction occupies that slot. Therefore, at a point of time, only five autorickshaws are being parked in front of the building. Other than the space occupied by five autorickshaws, the building have a road frontage of more than 60 feet, which is being utilised by the customers and occupants to park their two wheelers. There is a zebra crossing in front of the petitioner’s studio, having a width of more than 5 feet and autorickshaws are always parked after leaving the zebra line, as evident from Ext.R4(E) photograph. The petitioner commenced his studio about six months back. Prior to that, the said space was utilised for a supermarket run by a third party. Respondents 4 and 5 would also contend that none of the shop owners or the building owner himself ever complained about the autorickshaws parking in front of that building. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2[nd] respondent Grama Panchayat opposing the relief sought for in this writ petition. The 2[nd] respondent would contend that there is a 5 feet W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 8 wide footpath in front of the petitioner's studio, which is situated by the side of National Highway. Besides, there is a zebra crossing in front of the studio. No vehicles are being parked in the zebra crossing. Therefore, there is no chance of causing any obstruction to the customers for entering the studio. Since there is no private parking area, no vehicular access is required to the studio. No other shop owner doing business in the building raised any objection against parking of autorickshaws, which is being continued for more than 15 years. No vacant space without shop frontage is available in Manarcaudu town for parking of autorickshaws and passengers require availability of autorickshaws in the town itself. The Committee of the 2[nd] respondent Grama Panchayat considered the matter in its meeting held on 29.06.2018 and decided vide Ext.R2(a) decision to continue the parking of autorickshaws at Manarcaudu Junction, since no inconvenience is caused to the petitioner's studio. 8. On 30.07.2018, the petitioner filed I.A.No.13789 of 2018 complaining that the interim order passed by this Court on 12.07.2018 is violated and therefore, action shall be taken against respondents 1 and 3. On 31.07.2018, when the matter W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 9 was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and also the learned Government Pleader for the 1[st] respondent sought time to file counter affidavit in that interlocutory application. This Court directed the learned Government Pleader to file affidavit stating as to whether the interim order passed on 12.07.2018 is being complied with. 9. The 1[st] respondent has filed a counter affidavit in I.A.No.13789 of 2018 (wrongly described as the counter affidavit filed by the 3[rd] respondent), wherein it has been stated that as per the direction of this Court dated 12.07.2018, he has given strict instructions to respondents 4 and 5 to maintain a gap of 5 feet between the autorickshaws and also to leave open the entrance of the petitioner’s studio. Along with the counter affidavit, few photographs taken on 07.08.2018 are placed on record, which are wrongly marked as Ext.R2(a), instead of marking as Ext.R1(a), to show that there is no hindrance to the petitioner’s studio by the parking of autorickshaws on the road margin of National Highway. The photographs produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respndent in I.A.No.13789 of 2018 shall be marked as Ext.R1(a). Even after W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 10 the tar marked portion, sufficient margin is available on the side of the road. The said portion is laid with concrete tiles facilitating parking of vehicles, which includes autorickshaw parking. In between the parking space and the shopping complex, a minimum 5 feet space is available for the pedestrians. The autorickshaw stand is in existence for more than 15 years and the 2[nd] respondent Grama Panchayat has already passed a resolution dated 29.06.2018 to continue the parking of autorickshaws. The zebra crossing having a width of 9 feet exits right in front of the entrance of the petitioner's studio, which is not permitted to be blocked by any sort of parking, as the same is intended for uninterrupted use by pedestrians. 10. The 2[nd] respondent has also filed a counter affidavit in I.A.No.13789 of 2018, wherein it has been stated that the 3[rd] respondent Secretary of the Grama Panchayat forwarded a copy of the interim order dated 12.07.2018, along with Ext.R2(b) covering letter dated 19.07.2018, to the 1[st] respondent Sub Inspector of Police and requested the Police to take necessary steps to implement the direction contained in that interim order. 11. On 30.01.2019, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 seeking an order directing respondents 1 to 3 to rearrange the W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 11 parking of autorickshaws in front of the petitioner’s studio, leaving a space of 5 meters in between any two autorickshaws other than the space now left as pedestrian cross. In the affidavit filed in support of that interlocutory application it is averred that, as evident from the photographs produced along with the counter affidavit of the 2[nd] respondent, the autorickshaws are being parked just leaving the pedestrian cross right in front of the petitioner’s shop as vacant, but leaving no space in between the other two autorickshaws. Since the space left is for pedestrian cross, the same has to be kept vacant and as a result, the petitioner could not park his scooter in front of his shop. In view of the fact that the entire space left by autorickshaws is earmarked as pedestrian cross, it has become just and necessary to request this Court to require respondents 1 to 3 to take steps to re-arrange the parking of the autorickshaws leaving the space as directed by this Court in between the autorickshaws other than the pedestrian cross now left as vacant. A reading of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2019 would show that the autorickshaws are now being parked leaving the pedestrian crossing. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 12 learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1[st] respondent, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and also the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. 13. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to take effective and meaningful steps to remove the autorickshaws parked by respondents 4 and 5 and their men, from its present parking place in front of his studio to some other parking place assigned by the 2[nd] respondent Grama Panchayat. In support of the contentions raised in this writ petition, the petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in **Noushad M. and others v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (2) KHC 562]** . 14. In exercise of the powers under Section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in supersession of the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989, the Central Government made the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017. Clause (b) of Regulation 1 define the term 'carriageway' to mean the part or parts of a road normally used by vehicular traffic, whether separate from one another by a dividing strip or a difference of level or not. Clause (j) of Regulation 1 define the term 'parking' W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 13 to mean the bringing of a vehicle to a stationary position and causing it to wait for any purpose other than that of immediately taking up or setting down persons, goods or luggage and includes stopping for more than three minutes. Clause (o) of Regulation 1 define the term 'road user', which includes a person driving or traveling on the road in a vehicle or otherwise and a pedestrian. Clause (r) of Regulation 1 define the term 'stopping' to mean halting a vehicle for a very short duration out of free will, either to allow the passenger to board or elight or quick loading or unloading of goods. 15. Regulation 5 deals with duties of drivers and riders. As per clause (4) of Regulation 5, the driver and the riders shall take special care and precautions to ensure the safety of the most vonurable road users such as pedestrians, cyclist, children, elderly and the differently abled persons. As per clause (5) of Regulation 5, the driver shall ensure that his vehicle, while moving or when stationary does not cause any hindrance or undue inconvenience to other road users or to occupants of any property. ## 16. Regulation 12 deals with traffic control signals, which provides that while approaching a traffic control signal, the W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 14 vehicle shall slow down and follow the directions given by the traffic control signals in the manner enumerated in clauses (1) to (3). Clause (1) of Regulation 12 deals with red traffic lights. As per sub-clause (a) of clause (1), a motor vehicle facing the red light of a traffic control signal at an intercession or at a place other than an intercession, shall stop the vehicle before the stop line preceding the pedestrian crossing. As per sub-clause (b), if the stop line is marked or if marked is not visible, the vehicle shall stop before the pedestrian crossing. 17. Regulation 14 deals with overtaking. As per subclause (e) of clause (5) of Regulation 14, no vehicle shall overtake at junctions, intercessions and pedestrian crossing. Regulation 22 deals with stopping and parking. As per sub-clause (iv) of clause (1) of Regulation 22, a vehicle shall not be stopped on, or five meters before a pedestrian crossing. As per subclause (b) of clause 2 of Regulation 22, a vehicle shall not be parked on a main road or at a stretch of road where the notified maximum limit is 50 km per hour or more. As per sub-clause (c), a vehicle shall not be parked on footpath, cycle path and pedestrian crossing; as per sub-clause (d), before or after an intercession or a junction upto a distance of 50 meters from the W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 15 edge of intercession or junction; as per sub-clause (e), where it would block access to designated parking places; as per subclause (i), in front of the entrance or exit of a property; and as per sub-clause (m), if it is likely to obstruct other vehicle or cause inconvenience to any person. 18. Regulation 39 deals with pedestrian crossing, footpath and cycle track. As per clause (1) of Regulation 39, while approaching an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing, the driver shall slow down, stop and give way to pedestrian, users of invalid carriages and wheel chairs. As per clause (2), if the traffic has come to a standstill, the driver shall not drive the vehicle on the pedestrian crossing, if he is unlikely to be able to move further and thereby block the pedestrian crossing. As per sub-clause (3), when a road is provided with a footpath or cycle track, no vehicle shall drive on such footpath or track, except from the direction of a Police Officer in uniform or where traffic signs permitting some movements have been displayed. 19. The provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, referred to hereinbefore would make it explicitly clear that, no parking of a motor vehicle is legally permissible on a pedestrian crossing in view of the provisions W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 16 under sub-clause (c) of clause (2) of Regulation 22. As per subclause (iv) of clause (1) of Regulation 22, no vehicle shall be stopped on, or five meters before a pedestrian crossing. In the instant case, as can be seen from Ext.R2(a) photographs, there is a pedestrian crossing just in front of the petitioner's studio with a stop line. The parking of autorickshaws in front of the petitioner's studio, as seen from Ext.R2(a) photographs is not on the pedestrian crossing or on the stop line preceding the pedestrian crossing marked on the carriageway (tarred portion) of the National Highway. Since the road in front of the petitioner's studio is a National Highway, parking of vehicles on carriageway (tarred portion) of the road is legally impermissible, in view of sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of Regulation 22. 20. In Writ Petition (C) No.295 of 2012 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, by a public-spirited citizen, seeking enforcement of road safety norms and appropriate treatment of accident victims, the Apex Court constituted a 'Committee on Road Safety', vide its order dated 22.04.2014, and notified by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, on 30.05.2014. In the said writ petition the Apex Court delivered a judgment dated 30.11.2017 - W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 17 **S.Rajaseekaran v. Union of India [(2018) 13 SCC 532]** . In the said decision, the Apex Court observed that all States and Union Territories are expected to implement the Road Safety Policy with all due earnestness and seriousness. The responsibility and functions of the Road Safety Council constituted in terms of Section 215 of the MV Act will be as recommended by the Committee on Road Safety constituted as per the order dated 22.04.2014 and Road Safety Councils should periodically review the laws and take appropriate remedial steps whenever necessary. In paragraph 94.13 of the said decision, in the context of Lane Driving, the Apex Court held that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has already issued the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, vide G.S.R.634 (E) dated 23.06.2017, which should be implemented by the State Governments and Union Territories strictly. Paragraphs 94.1 to 94.25 of the said decision contains various directions issued by the Apex Court. 21. As evident from the photographs placed on record as Ext.R2(a), there is sufficient road margin in front of the petitioner's studio, which is laid with concrete tiles facilitating parking of vehicles, including autorickshaws. In front of the W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 18 petitioner's shop room there is a passageway at a height of 10 to 20 centimeters, having a width of 4 to 4.5 feet for the customers to have access to different shop rooms in 'Thazhathddathu Buildings'. Abutting the said passageway there is a footpath, having a width of approximately 4 feet for pedestrians. The road margin in front of the building, which is laid with concrete tiles, is having a width of more than 6 feet, as evident from Ext.R2(a) photographs. In between the parking place and the footpath, there is sufficient space for the pedestrians to move around. The pedestrian crossing in front of the petitioner's studio is having a width of 9 feet and parking of vehicles on zebra crossing is legally impermissible. The entry of pedestrians to the footpath in front of the petitioner's studio, through the road margin on the side of zebra crossing, cannot also be blocked by parking of any vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have a grievance that the parking of autorickshaws in the road margin, in front of his photo studio, will block entry to that studio. 22. As can be seen from Ext.R2(a) photographs, blocking the passageway in front of the petitioner's studio certain constructions have been made by the petitioner. By that construction the passageway in front of the studio, having a W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 19 width of 4 to 4.5 feet, for the customers to have access to different shop rooms in 'Thazhathedathu Buildings', is blocked and the construction even abuts the footpath on the side of the National Highway. A two wheeler is seen parked on the footpath in front of the petitioner's studio, in violation of sub-clause (c) of clause (2) of Regulation 22 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017. 23. From the counter affidavit filed by the 2[nd] respondent it can be seen that parking of autorickshaws in front of the petitioner's studio is continuing for more than 15 years. The petitioner, who is conducting a studio in a building abutting National Highway, which do not have any parking space for vehicles, have no legal right to insist that no vehicles shall be parked in front of his studio, in the road margin having sufficient width, and that, space should be earmarked in the road margin for parking his vehicle or that of his customers. It is for the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction made in front of his studio blocking the passageway in front of the studio. The petitioner cannot also park his two wheeler or any other vehicle over the footpath in front of his studio. 24. In **Noushad's case (supra)** , a Division Bench of this W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 20 Court held that permitting parking of autorickshaws permanently in front of shop rooms on the side of Highway is an appropriation of private right of owners of shops and houses to have free access to Highways. Obstructing such private right is not justified. In the said decision the Division Bench was dealing with an unauthorised autorickshaws stand, which has not been approved by the Grama Panchayat or anybody else. In the said decision, arising out of a writ petition filed seeking police protection, this Court directed the Grama Panchayat to constitute Traffic Regulatory Committee in accordance with Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and to determine the location of the parking place for autorickshaws in consultation with the District Police Chief and the Regional Transport Authority. Until a decision is taken by the competent authority, this Court permitted five autorickshaws at a time being parked in the existing parking place to assistant the general public, subject to any other decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority, in consultation with the local authority. 25. A reading of the decision of the Division Bench in **Noushad's case (supra)** and also the decisions referred to therein would show that, the law laid down in those decisions W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 21 would not enable the petitioner, who is conducting a studio in a building abutting National Highway, without any parking space, to contend that the road margin in front of his studio should be kept open or reserved for parking of his vehicle or that of his customers. Since the road margin in front of the petitioner's studio is having sufficient width to park autorickshaws, without causing any obstruction to the passage of pedestrians, the petitioner cannot seek an order preventing parking of autorickshaws in that road margin, without obstructing the entry of pedestrians to the footpath through the road margin on the side of the pedestrian crossing. 26. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1[st] respondent in I.A.No.13789 of 2018, it has been stated that, the said respondent has given strict instructions to respondents 4 and 5 to maintain a gap of 5 feet between autorickshaws and leave open the entrance of the petitioner's studio. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 and 5 it has been stated that, only 5 autorickahsws are being parked on the road margin in front of Thazhathedathu buildings and the remaining autorickshaws are parked 100 to 150 metres away from the junction in order to avoid traffic congestion. When one out of the W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 22 five autorickshaws parked in the road margin leaves the stand, another autorickshaw parked behind the junction occupies that slot in front of the building. The averment in the counter affidavit filed by the 2[nd] respondent that the autorickshaw stand is in existence for more than 15 years stands controverted, in the absence of a reply affidavit filed by the petitioner. 27. It is not discernible from the pleadings and materials on record whether the autorickshaw stand in question was established 15 years back, after complying with the statutory requirements then in force. If not, it is for the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents to take necessary steps in this regard, taking note of the statutory provisions now in force, and the exercise in this regard shall be completed with notice to the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 and other interested parties, including a competent officer in charge of the National Highway in question, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 28. The 1[st] respondent shall ensure that no vehicles including autorickshaws are parked in the road margin in front of the petitioner's studio, obstructing the entry of pedestrians to W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 23 the footpath, through the road margin on the side of the pedestrian crossing, and that autorickshaws are parked leaving sufficient gap between the autorickshaws. No vehicles shall be permitted to park on the footpath, causing obstruction to pedestrians. The 3[rd] respondent shall take necessary steps to remove the unauthorised construction made by the petitioner on the passageway in front of his photo studio, which is causing obstruction to the passage of customers to different shop rooms in Thazhathedathu Building, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** AV W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 24 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AUTO RICKSHAWS PARKED IN FRONT OF THE STUDIO OF THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23/02/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22/03/2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 05/04/2018.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON DATED 07.08.2018.** - **EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/07/2018** - **EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM.** - **EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM.** - **EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE FRONTAGE OF THE BUILDING WHERE THE PETITIONERS' STUDIO IS SITUATED.** - **EXHIBIT R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE FRONTAGE OF THE BUILDING WHERE THE PETITIONERS' STUDIO IS SITUATED.** - **EXHIBIT R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF K.K.ROAD WHERE AUTOS ARE PARKED.** W.P.(C).No.20528 of 2018 25