ROSHY J PALLAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows: The petitioner is the co-owner of a building by name "Joseph Plaza" situated in Thammanam Junction. The building has frontages on the eastern side of Palarivattom Road and on the northern side of Thammanam -Pullepady road. Ground floor of the building consists of various shop rooms which are let out to tenants who are doing business therein. First floor portion is let out to M/s.National Insurance Company Limited and to M/s.Capitol Saloon. Initially few Autorickshaws used to park on the eastern side of the building without causing any obstruction to the ingress and egress to the shop rooms on the eastern side. While so on 15/9/2022 few Autorickshaw drivers under the leadership of respondents 7 to 9 started to park Autorickshaws on the northern side of the building completely blocking the entry and exit to the shop rooms on the northern side of the building. They are parking the Autorickshaws on the tarred portion of the road. The staircase leading to the first floor where the Branch of the National Insurance Company is functioning is also blocked because of the parking of the autorickshaws. Because of the parking of the autorickshaws as stated above, vehicular access to the shop rooms is completely lost. It is also submitted that before parking as stated above, the respondents 7 to 9 marked "NO PARKING" on the tarred portion of the road. Though the petitioner requested them not to park autorickshaws on the northern side of the building, they refused to do so. Ext.P3 photograph shows the manner in which autorickshaws are parked on the northern side of the building and also the marking of "no parking" on the tarred portion of the road. In view of the obstruction to the ingress and egress created by the parking of the autorickshaws, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 complaint. Further complaints are preferred as Exts.P6,P7 and P8. Petitioner submits that no parking space is notified under the Motor Vehicles Act, Kerala Municipality Act or under the Kerala Police Act, 2011 in front of the building of the petitioner. Petitioner contend that the parking is completely illegal and caused serious prejudice to the petitioner as well as the tenants of the building.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 6 to 9 contending that the above writ petition has been field suppressing many of the factual aspects. The respondents had never blocked the ingress and egress of the building owned by the petitioner. It is further contended that the 7th respondent has no connection with the issue involved and his only connection is that he is the son of an auto driver. The respondents are the owners/drivers of the autorikshaw and the meager income received from driving the autorickshaw is their only source of income. It is contended that the tarred portion of the road shown in Ext.P3 photograph is not owned by the petitioner and it is owned by the Cochin Corporation. As there was traffic block, the 10th respondent Corporation decided to widen and develop the Thammanam Junction and an amount of Rs.2.00 Crore was sanctioned by the Cochin Corporation. By utilizing that amount the disputed portion of property was acquired by the 10th respondent Municipal Corporation for widening the road. This resulted in vacant place at the Thammanam Junction and as the continuation of the road is blocked due to the non acquirement of the adjacent land, the said portion cannot be used for free and continuous vehicular traffic and the same has been used for parking. Respondents 6 to 9 have produced R8(a) series of photographs to show the factual position available in the subject property. The authorities have not taken any steps to declare the property as a no parking area. The attempt of the petitioner is to use the property of the Cochin Corporation as his exclusive private parking for which he has absolutely no right and the petitioner as well as these respondents have equal right to park the vehicles in the said area. The respondents also contended that the building of the petitioner is an unauthorised construction and they have not provided the requisite set back as per the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. On the strength of the interim order the petitioner is using the property as his exclusive parking area of his shopping complex and the petitioner as well as the official respondents are threatening the party respondents from parking autorickshaws. It is further submitted that the respondents or their colleagues are not parking their vehicles in that space from 4th November onwards. The respondents are finding it difficult as they could not park their auotorickshaws on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court. Petitioner on the basis of Ext.R8(b) photographs submits that other vehicles are being parked in the road portion. The 7th respondent Corporation is having a duty to provide adequate parking space for the autorickshaws also. The respondents are trying to park only five authorickshaws horizontally in the said space. Even after parking five autorickshaws there is sufficient space left for the ingress and egress of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 9 further submits that necessary request has been submitted before the Corporation of Cochin and Regional Transport Authority on 14/11/2022 so as to declare the said area as a parking space. In the light of the above said averment the respondents 6 to 9 sought for dismissal of the writ petition.