UMMAYA HAMZA Vs. CALICUT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is running a restaurant within the limits of Kozhikode Municipal Corporation (the Corporation). The restaurant of the petitioner is situated on the southern side of Mavoor road. On the west of the restaurant of the petitioner, there is a multi- speciality hospital. In the year 2000, the Public Works Department of the State Government decided to raise the height of the footpaths on either side of Mavoor road, and when the said work was commenced, the predecessor of the petitioner approached this Court in O.P.No.4535 of 2000 alleging that if the work proposed by the Public Works Department is carried out, the same would affect the rights of ingress and egress in respect of the land where the restaurant building is situated. This Court disposed of the said writ petition in terms of Ext.P2 judgment permitting the petitioner to lay slanting slabs for vehicular access to and from the land where the restaurant building is situated. After about 20 years, during 2020, the Corporation has decided to reconstruct the public drains and footpaths on either side of Mavoor road. When the said work has commenced, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.12285 of 2020 alleging that the work proposed by the Corporation would affect the rights of ingress and egress in respect of the land where the restaurant building is situated. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment, directing the Corporation to consider the representation preferred by the petitioner seeking orders for vehicular access to the land where the restaurant is situated, through its entire road frontage. It is stated by the petitioner that though a hearing was held pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment, the request of the petitioner was turned down by the Corporation in terms of Ext.P12 order. It is alleged that even before serving Ext.P12 order on the petitioner, the Corporation has completed the work proposed by them. It is stated by the petitioner that the height of the footpath in front of the restaurant now stands raised substantially and the petitioner is given vehicular access to the land where the restaurant is situated only through a portion of the frontage of the land having a length of 7 metres. The petitioner challenges Ext.P12 order in this writ petition. The petitioner also seeks appropriate directions to the Corporation to provide vehicular access through the entire road frontage of the land where the restaurant building is situated.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Corporation in the matter contending, among others, that the footpath referred to by the petitioner in the writ petition is designed and meant to ensure safety of the pedestrians using the Mavoor road and to enable them to move through either side of the road without any obstruction; that the frontage of the land where the restaurant of the petitioner is situated is 22 metres and vehicular access at a length of 7 metres was, therefore, provided to the parking space in the premises of the petitioner; that the attempt of the petitioner is to make use of the space in between the restaurant building and the road for parking of four wheelers; that the setback of the restaurant building of the petitioner on the side of the road is less than 3.6 metres; that parking of four wheelers cannot be permitted in that area; that if the petitioner is permitted to make use of that area for parking, such parking would obstruct the free movement of the pedestrians through the footpath; that Ext.P12 decision was communicated to the petitioner by e-mail on 17.08.2020 and it is thereafter that the work was completed, and if the request of the petitioner is allowed, there will be water logging on the footpath.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.