Navabudeen Y. ag. v. State Police Chief & Others (WP(C).No.590 of 2021(W))

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.590 OF 2021(W)** ## **PETITIONER:** **NAVABUDEEN Y. AGED 56 YEARS S/O. YUSUF KUNJU, MANAMEL HOUSE, MANACAUD, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM-691 010** **BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE POLICE CHIEF**| |---|---| ||**POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014**| |**2**|**THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,**| ||**KOLLAM CITY, KOLLAM-691 001**| |**3**|**THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,**| ||**CHATHANNOOR, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM-691 572**| |**4**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**| ||**COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOLLAM-691**| ||**013**| |**5**|**THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,**| ||**ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERAVIPURAM**| ||**P.O.,KOLLAM-691 011**| |**6**|**THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,**| ||**COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION P.O.,KOLLAM-691**| ||**013**| -2- ## WP(C).No.590 OF 2021(W) - **7 THE KOLLAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDINGS, KOLLAM-691 001** - **8 THE CHAIRMAN, TRAFFIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY, KOLLAM CORPORATION, CORPORATION BUILDING, KOLLAM-691 001 ( THE MAYOR-KOLLAM CORPORATION,KOLLAM-691 001)** - **9 SRI.AHMED KUNJU, S/O. MUHAMMED HANEEFA,716, INCHAKKAL PANDINJATTATHIL, VADAKKEVILA,KOLLAM-691 010 (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE KL-02-T-7425)** - **10 SMT.RASHEEDA, D/O. ABDUL AZEEZ,PUTHUVEETTIL KIZHAKKATHIL, VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM,-691 010 (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE KL-02-AH-14026)** - **11 SRI.ASHKAR.M., S/O. HUSSAIN, SHAJEELA MANZIL, THATTARKONAM,KOLLAM-691 505 (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE KL-20-L-0562)** **R1-6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SUNIL NATH N.B R7 BY SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM MPT** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -3- WP(C).No.590 OF 2021(W) ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is the owner in possession of 5.84 Ares of property comprised in Re-Sy.No.228/6 in Block No.24 of Vadakkevila Village, by virtue of Ext.P1 Sale Deed No.3129/2009 of the Sub Registrar Office, Eravipuram, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 8 to afford him adequate and effective police protection and not to permit parking of autorickshaws by respondents 9 to 11 and others in front of his property and building covered by Ext.P1 sale deed, situated in Pallimukku Junction, Kollam, having access to NH-47, and to ensure free ingress and egress to the building and his right to get access to the National Highway. The petitioner has also sought for other consequential reliefs. In the writ petition, it is alleged that respondents 9 to 11 and others are unauthorisedly parking autorickshaws in front of the petitioner's building, causing obstruction to free ingress and egress to that building. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint dated 20.12.2020 -4- ## WP(C).No.590 OF 2021(W) before the 5[th] respondent Station House Officer and thereafter, moved this writ petition before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs. The document marked as Ext.P3 is the photographs showing unauthorised parking of autorickshaws in front of the petitioner's building. 2. On 08.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 6. The learned Standing Counsel took notice on admission for respondents 7 and 8. This Court issued urgent notice on admission by speed post to respondents 9 to 11, returnable within three weeks. This Court directed respondents 5 and 6 and also the 8[th] respondent to file statements before the next posting date. 3. Along with a memo filed by the learned Government Pleader, the report of the 5[th] respondent Station House Officer is placed on record. 4. A statement of the 6[th] respondent Regional Transport Officer is also placed on record. Paragraph 2 of that statement reads thus; -5- WP(C).No.590 OF 2021(W) - “2. The petitioner Sri.Navabudeen has not yet been submitted any complaint about the case which mentioned in the notice in W.P.(C)No.590 of 2021 to this office. However an enquiry had been conducted through a circle officer of this office based on the notice of Honourable High court of Kerala. In this enquiry report he reported as follows:- - a) The place which mentioned in the complaint, a “No Parking Board” is placed by PWD Department. - b) There is some unauthorized parking of Pick up Auto rickshaws were found. - c) Directions issued to the concerned parties against the unauthorized parking of Auto rickshaws and action has been taken against the unauthorized parking. - d) In the light of the report of the enquiry officer, strict enforcement action will conduct against the unauthorized parking in the upcoming days.” 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 6 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Kollam Corporation, representing respondents 7 and 8. Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents 9 to 11. 6. In **Noushad M. and Others v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (2) KHC 562]** , a Division Bench of this -6- ## WP(C).No.590 OF 2021(W) 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 assist the general public, subject to any other decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority, in consultation with the local authority. -7- WP(C).No.590 OF 2021(W) 7. In **Kottamom (Kottiyar Mangalam) Sri Darmasastha Temple Advisory Committee v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (5) KHC SN 27]** this Court noticed 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 the provisions under sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of Regulation 22, -8- WP(C).No.590 OF 2021(W) 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 above, the petitioner cannot seek an order preventing parking of any vehicles in that road margin. 8. In the instant case, as per the statement filed by the 6[th] respondent Regional Transport Officer, there is unauthorised parking of pick-up autorickshaws in front of the petitioner's building, despite the fact that a 'no parking' board is placed by the Public Works Department. The 6[th] respondent has issued directions against unauthorised parking of autorickshaws and strict action shall be taken against such unauthorised parking. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondents 5 and 6 to take necessary steps to -9- WP(C).No.590 OF 2021(W) ensure that there is no unauthorised parking of autorickshaws in front of the petitioner's building, causing obstruction to free ingress and egress to that building. In case there is any such obstruction, the petitioner shall approach the 5[th] respondent Station House Officer with a request for police assistance, in which event, the said respondent shall take necessary action on that request, strictly in accordance with law, without any delay. **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV/12/3 -10- WP(C).No.590 OF 2021(W) ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE FOR THE PERIOD 2020-2021 DATED 21.12.2020 TO THE PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 29/05/2020 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE OBSTRUCTION CAUSED BY THE RESPONDENTS 9 TO 11 AND THEIR HENCHMEN BY PARKING AUTORICKSHAWS IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.12.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT AND RESPODNENTS 1 TO 4 AND 6 TO 8**