JOSEPH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interference with the private right of an owner of land adjoining the national highway has given rise to this Petition. Petitioner is the proprietor of an engineering workshop situated on the side of the national highway. He has been conducting business for the last 30 years. He is mainly engaged in the manufacture of iron gate, grill, etc. Workshop has got a main road frontage of 35 feet facing the highway. Raw materials are brought in autorickshaws, hand carts, tempo, van, etc. and the finished products such as gate, grill, etc., are removed from the workshop in those vehicles.

(2.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the unauthorised parking of taxi cars in front of his workshop and on the side of the national highway, causing obstruction to his business. He and his customers are unable to bring vehicles in front of the workshop to load and unload materials. Petitioner submits due to obstruction he has to make a detour to reach his premises and it causes considerable inconvenience. Petitioner submits he has got a fundamental right to do business guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India without any obstruction to his private right or access to the highway. To conduct business, he should have direct access to the main road. Any impediment to his direct access to the highway, otherwise than for a public interest, is unauthorised and illegal. Police authorities have put up 'no parking' board on the side of the national highway in front of the petitioner's shop earlier. However, the same was unauthorisedly removed and about 15 taxies are parked round the Clock in front of his workshop, which adversely affects his private right of entry to the highway. He has, therefore, approached this Court seeking a direction to the police authorities not to allow taxi cars to be permanently parked in front of his workshop, invading his private right of entry to the highway.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. Stand of the second respondent is that parking of vehicles in front of the petitioner's workshop is no hindrance to the traffic. It is stated only 15 taxi cars are parked in the place in question. It is their case that petitioner can use a side road without any hindrance. Second respondent submits that petitioner cannot have any legal right seeking removal of taxi cars from the highway.