N. Sivakumar v. Kottarakkara Municipality and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P)** ## **PETITIONER :** **N. SIVAKUMAR, AGED 58 YEARS** **S/O NARAYANA PILLAI, KODIYATTU PUTHEN VEEDU, KIZHAKKEKARA, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 KOTTARAKKARA MUNCIPALITY, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-691506.** - **2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA-691506.** - ***ADDL. R3 BHARATHIYA MASDOOR SANGHAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER VISAK, AGED 35 YEARS, THONDATHIL PADINJATATHIL, PALLIKKAL P.O., KOTTARAKKARA-691506.** - ***ADDL. R4 ALL INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PRASAD, AGED 47 YEARS, KAVUVILA VEEDU, PADINJATTINKARA, KOTTARAKKARA691506.** - **ADDL.R3 AND R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14/3/2019 IN IA 1/2019.** - **R1 BY SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, KOTTARAKKARA MUNICIPALITY** ## **R2 BY SRI. JESTIN MATHEW, GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession of a building situated in the property having an extent of 3.10 Ares in Sy.No.69/19 in Kottarakara Village, where he is conducting a hotel by name 'Hotel Radhas'. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent Circle Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara, to remove unauthorised parking of autorickshaws in front of the way leading to his building from the main road. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to take a decision on Ext.P2 order dated 09.11.2018 of the Taluk Legal Service Committee, Kottarakkara, within a stipulated time to be fixed by this Court, and remove the vehicles, if any, parked in front of his property. 2. According to the petitioner, certain autorickshaw drivers are indiscriminately parking their vehicles in front of his hotel, blocking the way to that hotel, which is on the western side of Puthoor Road at Chanthamukku. They are intending to make that place as autorickshaw stand causing obstruction to free ingress and egress to the petitioner's hotel. The petitioner approached the Taluk Legal Service Committee by submitting Ext.P1 petition. The W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 3 Committee passed Ext.P2 order dated 09.11.2018, whereby the Secretary of the 1[st] respondent Kottarakkara Municipality was directed to take necessary steps to remove autorickshaws and other vehicles parked on the western side of Puthoor Road at Chanthamukku causing obstruction to free flow of traffic. Since no action has been taken in compliance with Ext.P2 order, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 petition dated 19.12.2018 before the 1[st] respondent, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in order to know the steps already taken to implement that order. Thereupon, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P4 communication dated 19.01.2019 of the Public Information Officer in the office of the 1[st] respondent, whereby he was informed that Ext.P2 order has already been forwarded to the Traffic Advisory Committee for further action. 3. On 13.02.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. 4. By the order dated 07.03.2019, the petitioner was directed to implead either the autorickshaw union or the drivers of autorickshaws, who are parking their vehicles in front of his hotel, as additional respondents. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 4 seeking an order to implead Bharathiya Masdoor Sangham, represented by its Convener and All India Trade Union Congress, represented by its Secretary as additional respondents 3 and 4. By the order dated 14.03.2019, this Court allowed I.A.No.1 of 2019 and the writ petition was also admitted on file. The learned Standing Counsel took notice for the 1[st] respondent Municipality and the learned Government Pleader took notice for the 2[nd] respondent Circle Inspector of Police. This Court issued urgent notice by speed post to additional respondents 3 and 4, returnable within two weeks. Respondents 1 and 2 were directed to file counter affidavit/ statement within two weeks. 5. A statement has been filed by the 1[st] respondent Municipality. Paragraph 3 of that statement reads thus; “3. It is submitted that the petitioner has sought no relief against this respondent in the above writ petition. The petitioner had earlier approached the Kottarakkara Taluk Legal Services Committee by filing PLP No.1457/2018. This respondent had conducted an enquiry in the above complaint and a reply was submitted before the Adalat. From the enquiry, it was understood that due to the illegal parking of Auto rickshaws and other vehicles in front of the petitioner's building, there is regular traffic congestion. Based on this, on 05.10.2018, a letter was issued to the Circle Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara, to take steps to remove the obstructions W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 5 and this was communicated before the Hon'ble Lok Adalat. By Exhibit P2 order, the Adalat had directed this respondent to appropriate action to remove the obstructions caused by the parking of autorickshaws and other vehicles. In this regard, this respondent had already issued a letter to Circle Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara, as stated above and also pointed out that as per the decision of the Traffic Advisory Committee dated 25.07.2016, that autorickshaw stand has to be rearranged on both sides of Highmast light situated at the Town-Market Junction.” 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent Municipality and also the learned Government Pleader for the 2[nd] respondent Circle Inspector of Police. Despite service of notice, none appears for additional respondents 3 and 4. 7. 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 defines 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 defines the term 'parking' to mean the bringing of a vehicle to a stationary position and causing it to wait for any W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 6 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 defines 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 defines 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 alight or quick loading or unloading of goods. 8. 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 vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, 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. 9. 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 sub-clause (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 W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 7 maximum speed 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 edge of intercession or junction; as per sub-clause (e), where it would block access to designated parking places; as per sub-clause (i), in front of the entrance or exit of a property; and as per subclause (m), if it is likely to obstruct other vehicle or cause inconvenience to any person. 10. 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 wheelchairs. 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 on the directions of a Police Officer in uniform or where traffic signs permitting some movements have been displayed. W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 8 11. In view of the provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, referred to hereinbefore, the driver of a vehicle has to 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. No parking of a motor vehicle is legally permissible on footpath, cycle path and pedestrian crossing or in front of the entrance or exit of a property. Therefore, parking of motor vehicles including autorickshaws can be permitted on the road margin, only if road margin is having sufficient width to park motor vehicles, without causing any obstruction to the passage of pedestrians, and without violating the provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017. 12. The Indian Roads Congress has formulated Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities, vide IRC:103-2012. Indian Roads Congress was set up in December, 1934 on the recommendations of the Indian Road Development Committee (Jayakar Committee) set up by the Government of India, with the objective of Road Development in India. 13. In **Kottamom (Kottiyar Mangalam) Sri Darmasastha Temple Advisory Committee v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (5) KHC SN 27]** this Court held that, in view of the W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 9 Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities formulated by the Indian Roads Congress, vide IRC:103-201, no parking of vehicles is legally permissible on the 'footpath', which is the portion of right of way of road used for the movement of pedestrians. Any such parking of vehicles on the footpath of public streets will force pedestrians to walk in unsafe circumstances, which will adversely affect the mobility and safety of all pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility. 14. In **Noushad M. and others v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (2) KHC 562]** , a Division Bench of this 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 W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 10 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 assist the general public, subject to any other decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority, in consultation with the local authority. ## 15. In **Kottamom (Kottiyar Mangalam) Sri Darmasastha** **Temple Advisory Committee** this Court held that a reading of the decision of the Division Bench in **Noushad** and also the decisions referred to therein would show that, the law laid down in those decisions in no way support the contention of the petitioner that no autorickshaw stand can be permitted to be established at any point the temple property touches the National Highway. As per clause (5) of Regulation 5 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, the driver of a vehicle has to 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. In view of the provisions under sub-clause (i) of clause (2) of Regulation 22, no vehicle shall be parked in front of the entrance or exit of the property. In view of the provisions under sub-clause (c) of clause (2), no vehicle shall be parked on the footpath. In view of W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 11 the provisions under sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of Regulation 22, no vehicle shall be parked on a main road or at a stretch of a road where the notified maximum speed limit is 50 km per hour or more. If the road margin in front of the temple is having sufficient width to park motor vehicles, without causing any obstruction to the passage of pedestrians, and without violating the provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 referred to hereinbefore, the petitioner cannot seek an order preventing parking of any vehicles in that road margin. 16. In **Kottamom (Kottiyar Mangalam) Sri Darmasastha Temple Advisory Committee** , since the road in front of the temple is a National Highway, this Court held that, once the National Highways are constructed as per the standards and guidelines prescribed by the Indian Roads Congress, it has to be maintained as such without any encroachment on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities provided as per such standards and guidelines. Therefore, before earmarking a place for autorickshaw stand on the side of a National Highway, without causing any obstruction to the passage of pedestrians, and without violating the relevant provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations. 2017, the Local Authority has to consult the competent officer, who W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 12 is in-charge of that National Highway, as authorised by the National Highways Authority of India. After such consultation, the Local Authority shall place the matter before the Traffic Regulatory Committee constituted in terms of Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and determine the location of the parking place for autorickshaws, in consultation with the concerned Regional Transport Authority and also the District Police Chief. Therefore, this Court directed the Grama Panchayat to take necessary steps in this regard within a period of two months from the date of reciept of a certified copy of that judgment. This Court has made it clear that the petitioner, respondents 10 to 14 and other affected parties shall be given an opportunity of being heard by the Traffic Regulatory Committee before taking a decision as to the location of autorickshaw stand at Kottamam Junction. Until such a decision is taken by the competent authority, the 6[th] respondent Sub Inspector of Police, while ensuring that the parking of autorickshaws in front of Kottiyarmangalam Sree Dharma Sastha Temple is without causing any obstruction to free ingress and egress to that temple, shall also ensure strict compliance of the provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 referred to hereinbefore, in the matter of parking of autorickshaws at that place. W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 13 17. In the statement filed by the 1[st] respondent it is stated that a decision has been taken by the Traffic Advisory Committee on 25.07.2016 that the autorickshaw stand has to be re-arranged on both sides of the High-mast light at Town-Market Junction. 18. The Traffic Regulatory Committees are constituted in every Grama Panchayat, Municipality and Corporation, under Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, for regulating matters in respect of traffic. The concerned head of the local self-government institution shall be the Chairman of the Traffic Regulatory Committee and the nominees of the District Magistrate, the District Police Chief, the Regional Transport Officer and the Executive Engineer of Public Works Department shall be the members of the said Committee. As per sub-section (3) of Section 72, the Traffic Regulatory Committee shall issue orders, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Kerala Road Safety Act, 2007 and the Rules made thereunder, for preventing danger, obstruction and inconvenience caused to the general public in respect of traffic, in the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (g), and such orders shall be complied with by the Government Departments concerned, the officers and the general public. 19. In case the parking of autorickshaws on the western side W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 14 of Puthoor Road at Chanthamukku is obstructing the entrance or exit of the petitioner's hotel; or causing obstruction to the passage of pedestrians that road; or violating the provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 it is for the Traffic Regulatory Committee for Kottarakkara Municipality, chaired by the head of that local self-government institution take an appropriate decision on that issue, after obtaining recommendation from the Traffic Advisory Committee, with notice to affected persons including the representatives of the autorickshaw owners/drivers unions. 20. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted by the Central Government to constitute legal services authorities to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities, and to organise Lok Adalats to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity. Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act define 'Lok Adalat' to me a Lok Adalat organised under Chapter VI. Clause (k) of Section 2 define 'Taluk Legal Services Committee' to me Taluk Legal Services Committee constituted under Section 11A. 21. As per sub-section (1) of Section 11A, the State W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 15 Authority may constitute a Committee, to be called the Taluk Legal Services Committee, for each taluk or mandal or for group of taluks or mandals. As per sub-section (2), the Committee shall consist of, the senior-most Judicial Officer operating within the jurisdiction of the Committee who shall be the ex-officio Chairman; and such number of other members, possessing such experience and qualifications, as may be prescribed by the State Government, to be nominated by that Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. 22. Section 11B of the Act deals with the functions of Taluk Legal Services Committee. As per Section 11B, the Taluk Legal Services Committee may perform all or any of the following functions, namely; co-ordinate the activities of legal services in the taluk; organise Lok Adalats within the taluk; and perform such other functions as the District Authority may assign to it. Section 19 deals with organisation of Lok Adalats. As per sub-section (1) of Section 19, every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 16 fit. As per sub-section (2), every Lok Adalat organised for an area shall consist of such number of serving or retired judicial officers; and other persons, of the area as may be specified by the State Authority or the District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or the High Court Legal Services Committee, or, as the case may be, the Taluk Legal Services Committee, organising such Lok Adalat. 23. As per sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the Act, a Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of (i) any case pending before; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any court for which the Lok Adalat is organised. As per the proviso to sub-rule (5), the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. 24. Section 20 of the Act deals with cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats. As per sub-section (1) of Section 20, where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of Section 19, the parties thereof agree; or one of the parties thereof makes an application to the court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 17 settlement and if such court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat. As per the proviso to sub-section (1), no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. As per sub-section (2) of Section 20, which starts with a non-obstante clause, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of Section 19 may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of Section 19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination. As per the proviso to sub-section (2), no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party. 25. As per sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act, where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2) the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 18 compromise or settlement between the parties. As per sub-section (4), every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. As per sub-section (5), where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the court, from which the reference has been received under sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance with law. As per sub-section (6), where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advise the parties to seek remedy in a court. As per sub-section (7), where the record of the case is returned under sub-section (5) to the court, such court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such reference under sub-section (1). 26. Section 21 of the Act deals with award of Lok Adalat. As per sub-section (1) of Section 21, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 19 be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of Section 20, the court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870. As per sub-section (2), every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award. 27. In the instant case, Ext.P2 award passed by the Lok Adalat in PLP 1457 of 2018 is one organised by the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Kottarakkara under Section 19 of the Act. The Lok Adalat consisted of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottarakkara and an Advocate. In the petition filed by the petitioner, the Secretary of Kottarakkara Municipality and the Circle Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara were made as respondents. The compromise or settlement arrived at between the parties do not form part of Ext.P2 award. The question as to whether parking of autorickshaws can be permitted or not on the western side of Puthoor Road at Chanthamukku has to be decided with reference to the relevant statutory provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, etc. and also the provisions under the W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 20 Kerala Police Act, 2011 by the Traffic Regulatory Committee constituted for the 1[st] respondent Municipality, with due notice to the affected persons including the representatives of the autorickshaw owners/drivers unions. The Taluk Legal Services Committee constituted under Section 11A of the Act has absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain a petition in such matters. 28. In **State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh [(2008) 2 SCC 660]** the Apex Court reiterated that Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial functions. Their functions relate purely to conciliation. Making of the award is merely an administrative act of incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties in the presence of the Lok Adalat. 29. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for implementation of Ext.P2 award of the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Kottarakkara, which is one issued absolutely without any jurisdiction. The question as to whether parking of autorickshaws on the western side of Puthoor Road at Chanthamukku can be permitted or not has to be decided by the Traffic Regulatory Committee for the 1[st] respondent Municipality, which is chaired by the Chairman of that Municipality, after obtaining necessary recommendation from the Traffic Advisory W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 21 Committee, with notice to the affected persons including the representatives of the autorickshaw owners/drivers unions. In case the Traffic Advisory Committee has already recommended that the autorickshaw stand has to be re-arranged on both sides of the highmast light at Town-Market Junction, it is for the Traffic Regulatory Committee of the 1[st] respondent Municipality to take an appropriate decision on that recommendation, with notice to the petitioner and other affected parties including the autorickshaw owners/drivers unions. The Traffic Regulatory Committee of the 1[st] respondent Municipality shall take an appropriate decision in the matter, in exercise of its powers under Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, taking note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law laid down as above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 30. In the statement filed by the 1[st] respondent Municipality it is stated that Secretary of the Municipality has already made a request dated 05.10.2018 to the 2[nd] respondent Circle Inspector of Police to remove obstruction on the road in front of the petitioner's hotel. Therefore, it is for the 2[nd] respondent to ensure that any parking of autorickshaws on the side of Puthoor Road at W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 22 Chanthamukku is not causing any obstruction to the passage of pedestrians and also to the entrance or exit of the petitioner's property. This writ petition is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV W.P.(C)No.4350 OF 2019(P) 23 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, KOTTARAKKARA DATED 14.9.2018 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, KOTTARAKKARA DATED 9.11.2018 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 19.1.2019**