High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-07-23Writ petition disposed of; directive to enforce...

Philip P Mathew & Mathew N Thomas v. Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam and Others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No.616/2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date: 2019-07-23
Court Decision / Holding: In exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 and in light of MV Driving Regulations, 2017, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent to ensure strict compliance with the Regulations thereby preventing parking in front of the petitioners’ residential entrances. It clarified that parking on the road margin of width about 2 meters may be permissible if it does not obstruct vehicular entry to the petitioners’ buildings or endanger pedestrians, and without impeding other road users.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; directive to enforce MV Driving Regulations, 2017 to prevent parking in front of residential entrances with limited permissible parking on road margin if non-obstructive.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Philip P Mathew
Mathew N Thomas

Respondents

Regional Transport Authority represented by Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam
Joint Regional Transport Officer, Sub Regional Transport Office, Thripunithura
The Sub Inspector of Police (Traffic), Hill Palace Police Station, Thripunithura
Thripunithura Municipality, represented by its Secretary
Traffic Regulatory Committee, Thripunithura Municipality
Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Division, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt Mable C. Kurien
• Sri C.V. MAnuvilsan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Philip P Mathew and Mathew N Thomas, residents adjacent to the Irumpanam Refinery Main Road, filed WP(C) No.616/2019 under Article 226 seeking mandamus to curb unauthorized parking directly in front of their properties. They prayed for (i) installation of no-parking boards in front of their compound walls, (ii) action against encroachers, and (iii) a prohibition on any vehicle parking for a stretch of about 30 meters in front of their homes, so as to ensure unimpeded ingress and egress for residents and visitors. The petition was supported by the contention that the Petta-KRL Road is a high-traffic corridor with trucks, tanker lorries, and vehicles from national permits, along with nearby auto workshops, which collectively cause ongoing obstruction and threaten safety. The counter-affidavit of the 3rd respondent argued that a 2-meter road margin and an 8-meter drainage exist, that parking in front of gates has been partially mitigated by prior actions including removal of parked vehicles, and that three No Parking boards have been erected by traffic police to deter unauthorized parking. The court relied on the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 ( Regulation 5 and Regulation 22) and on Supreme Court jurisprudence emphasizing road safety norms and enforcement. It disposed of the petition by directing strict compliance with the MV Regulations to prevent parking in front of residential entrances, while allowing limited parking on a road margin if it does not obstruct ingress, egress, or pedestrians.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226, Constitution of IndiaSection 118, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017Regulation 5(5), Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017Regulation 22(2)(c), Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 Regulation 22(2)(i), Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Writ of Mandamus

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that unattended and unauthorized parking directly impedes ingress and egress to their houses, creating safety hazards and infringing their rights of property access. They urged the court to issue a mandamus and to enforce no-parking restrictions along the frontages of their homes by installing clearly visible boards, disrupting encroachers, and ensuring a 30-meter no-parking stretch in front of their gates. They relied on the Motor Vehicles Act provisions and the 2017 Driving Regulations, especially those prohibiting parking in front of property entrances, to frame a robust regulatory remedy and to compel proactive enforcement by authorities.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the Petta-KRL Road is heavily trafficked, with trucks, tanker lorries, and vehicles from various sources parking along both sides, including near petitioners’ gates. They highlighted nearby workshops and a road margin and drainage that supposedly permit ingress if vehicles are parked with reasonable distance. They noted that traffic police had already installed three No Parking boards and are actively enforcing prohibitions. They urged that enforcement under MV Regulations 2017, rather than a blanket ban, would balance safety and traffic needs, and that the road margin could accommodate limited parking where it does not hinder ingress/egress or pedestrians.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India	[(2018) 13 SCC 532]	Positive	Cited to emphasize that states and Union Territories must implement road safety policies and ensure implementation of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, by states to curb unsafe parking and enhance road safety.
W.P.(C) No.295 of 2012	W.P.(C) No.295 of 2012	Mentioned Only	Referenced as background to note the Supreme Court's formation of a Road Safety Committee and related policy framework, but not as a binding holding in the current decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 Philip P Mathew & Mathew N Thomas v. Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.616 of 2019** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 PHILIP P MATHEW, AGED 49 YEARS, PATHICHERIL HOUSE, CHITRAPUZHA, IRIMPANAM P.O.** - **2 MATHEW N THOMAS, PATHICHERIL HOUSE, CHITRAPUZHA, IRIMPANAM P.O BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM 682 030** - **2 JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THRIPUNITURA 682 301** - **3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (TRAFFIC), HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, THRIPUNITHURA 682 301** - **4 THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, THRIPUNITHURA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 301 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **5 TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, THRIPUNITHURA P.O., 682 301** - **6 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, ERNAKULAM 682 031** **BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT MABLE C.KURIEN SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C) No.616/2019** **2** ## **C.R.** ## **JUDGMENT** The 1[st] petitioner is the owner of building bearing No.13/508 and the 2[nd] petitioner is the owner of building bearing No.13/507 on the side of the Irumpanam Refinery Main Road, which is maintained by the Public Works Department. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix No parking board in front of their compound wall and to take appropriate action against the illegal encroachers and also to ensure that there is no parking of any vehicle for a stretch of 30 meters in front of their houses. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to remove all obstructions for their ingress and egress and their vehicles to their houses. 2. On 09.01.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3 and 6. This Court **W.P.(C) No.616/2019** **3** issued urgent notice by speed post to respondents 4 and 5 returnable within two weeks. The learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3[rd] respondent. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said counter affidavit read thus; _“5. It is submitted that the Petta-KRL Road is a heavy traffic road. The trucks and tanker lorries coming from difference places including national permits vehicles are parking on the side of these road when the parking in the refinery is full. More over both sides of the Petta-KRL road there are some automobile workshops and Hydraulic Work Shops situated situated. Hence the Kerala and other state vehicles coming for repair are also parking on the both sides of that road including the front area of the petitioner's property._ _6. It is submitted that the petitioner had lodged a complaint before this respondent on 02.01.2019 regarding unauthorized parking in front of the petitioner's house. It was got enquired and removed ' the vehicles parked nearby the petitioner s gate. Between the Petitioners' compound wall and tar road there is a road margin having approximately 2 meters width and Drainage having approximately 8 meters width. Hence parking of the vehicle on either side of_ **W.P.(C) No.616/2019** **4** _the petitioner's gate, keeping sufficient distance from the entry point of the gate, will not obstruct ingress and egress of the petitioners. The traffic police erected three No Parking Boards on the Petta-KRL road in front area of petitioner's gate in order to avoid unauthorized parking. True photographs of the road infront of the Petitioner's property produced herewith and marked as_ _**Exhibit R3(a)** . It is submitted that Traffic Police Tripunithura is very vigilant in this type of unauthorized parking cases and Police is initiating action against the drivers who are parking their vehicles unauthorizedly in front of the petitioners house and on that road.”_ _(underline supplied)_ 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 6 and also the learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent. 5. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in supersession of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways issued the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017. Regulation 5 of the said Regulations deals with duties of drivers and **W.P.(C) No.616/2019** **5** riders. As per sub-regulation (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 the occupants of any properties. Regulation 22 deals with stopping and parking. As per clause (c) of sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 22, a vehicle shall not be parked on a foot path, cycle track and pedestrian crossing. As per clause (i) of sub-regulation (2), a vehicle shall not be parked in front of the entrance or exit of a property. 6. In Writ Petition (C) No.295 of 2012 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, by a publicspirited 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 **W.P.(C) No.616/2019** **6** 30.11.2017 - **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. In Para 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 which should be implemented by the State Governments and Union Territories strictly. 7. In view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle (Driving) Regulations, 2017 the driver of a motor vehicle has to ensure that his vehicle, when stationary, does not cause any hindrance or undue inconvenience to other road users or the occupants of any properties; and no vehicle shall be parked in front of the entrance or exit of a property. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed **W.P.(C) No.616/2019** **7** of by directing the 3[rd] respondent to ensure strict compliance of the aforesaid provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 thereby preventing parking of any vehicles in front of the entrance of the petitioners' residential buildings. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of parking of vehicles on the road margin having a width of approximately 2 meters, as evident from Ext.R3(a) photographs, without causing obstruction to vehicular entry to the petitioners' residential buildings and without causing any obstruction to the pedestrians and other road users. **Sd/-** **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV/30/7 **W.P.(C) No.616/2019** **8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1** - **PHOTO COPY OF THE EVIDENCE THE BLOCKING OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S CAR DUE TO THE UN-AUTHORISED PARKING OF A TRUCK IN FRONT OF THE HIS THARAVADU HOUSE** - **EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE UNAUTHORIZED PARKING OF A LORRY ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THEIR COMPOUND** **EXHIBIT P3** - **PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.3 ON 2/1/2019 FOR REMOVING THE UNAUTHORIZED PARKING OF THE VEHICLES** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R3(a) TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ROAD IN FRONT OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY** **//True Copy//** **P.A.To Judge**