ABRAHAM P.VARGHESE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of a beautification work carried out within the limits of the Thiruvalla Municipality and the consequential inconveniences alleged by the petitioners for parking vehicles. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver this common judgment. The facts and documents available from W.P. (C) No.15750 of 2016 are relied upon for disposal of the writ petitions.

(2.) Petitioners are tenants of a commercial complex at Thiruvalla owned by Marthoma Syrian Church, from 1975. Apart from the petitioners in the said writ petition, there are other 32 tenants including Public Sector Undertakings, nationalized Banks etc. The Commercial Complex is a double storied building on the southern side of Thiruvalla-Kumbazha State Highway. Between the highway and the building, the church has provided a 15 feet wide parking space, which is having direct access and entry from the highway from every point, and the occupants are using the said parking space uninterruptedly from every point. The customers and visitors of the complex are also using the same. That apart, it is submitted that, the space in between the road and the building is the sole parking space available on the side of public roads at Thiruvalla.

(3.) It is also submitted, a drain is remaining on the southern side of the road for 50 years, constructed using property of the church and has provided concrete slabs over the same, so as to ensure entry of vehicles and people from every point. Ext.P1 series of photographs are produced to establish the present lie and nature of the area in question and the drain. Now the respondents have proposed to increase the height of the drain and lay slabs over the same, which will obstruct entry of vehicles to the parking space. According to the petitioners, if the drain is raised without making proper access, space in between the building and the drain will become useless and serious prejudice and irreparable loss and injury will be caused to the petitioners and customers visiting the shopping complex. Thereupon, representations were submitted before the Municipality as well as other statutory authorities, evident from Ext.P2. Case of the petitioners is that, in spite of earnest efforts of the petitioners, no action was initiated, which constrained the petitioners to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.