Chrisanthuz Zachariah vs The Secretary
2021 Latest Caselaw 879 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

     MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.6657 OF 2020(F)


PETITIONER:

               CHRISANTHUZ ZACHARIAH
               AGED 65 YEARS
               S/O. ZACHARAIAH, PUTHENVILA POOMANGALAM,
               THRIKKADAVOOR P.O.,KOLLAM

               BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J PANICKER

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE SECRETARY,
               KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM-691 001

      2        THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
               KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691 001

      3        THE RTO,
               CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691 013

      4        THE TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE,
               KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-691 001

               SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS, SC
               SMT.C.S.SHEEJA, SR GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
11.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.6657 OF 2020                   2




                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that in an item of property owned by him and situated

in the heart of Kollam City, he has constructed a Shopping Mall by name "Holy Star

Shopping Mall". The said mall is facing the Vadayattukotta-Chinnakkada road which

in turn leads to the Main Road, Kollam where the main business establishments are

situated. The road in front of the mall is having a width of about 4 meters and is

quite busy during day time. For enabling parking of vehicles of customers and

tenants and also to facilitate easy vehicular movement through the adjacent road,

at the time of construction itself, the petitioner had left out space having a width of

3 meters. His grievance is that taxi and private vehicles are being indiscriminately

parked in front of his establishment. The petitioner asserts that the area in front of

his mall has not been earmarked as an authorised parking area. Faced with the

above difficulties, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 complaint before the 4th

respondent, which authority has been constituted under Section 72 of the Kerala

Police Act. According to the petitioner, a duty is cast upon the 4th respondent to

regulate the traffic and fix up the parking area so that there will not be any

hindrance to the free ingress and egress into the business establishment run by the

petitioner. He would also assert that parking of vehicles on the main roads is

expressly prohibited under Rule 15(2)(4) of the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989

r/w. Section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner would also point

out that under Rule 344 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the location for

parking of vehicles is to be determined by the 3rd respondent in consultation with

the 1st respondent and other authorities. In the said circumstances, the petitioner

is stated to have lodged Ext.P6 complaint before the 3rd respondent. However, no

action was taken. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this

Court seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to remove the unauthorised

parking of vehicles in front of the business establishment of the petitioner and to

give specific directions to park the vehicles in the authorised area earmarked for the

parking of vehicles. He has also sought for a direction to the respondents to

consider Ext.P3 to P6 complaints filed by the petitioner in an expeditious time

frame.

2. As directed by this Court, a statement has been filed by the 1st

respondent. In paragraph No.2 of the statement, it is stated as follows:

"2. It is submitted that petitioner's shopping mall situated in

Thamarakulam division of Kollam Corporation and parking of

vehicles is not allowed in the said area. The said place is not a

parking area. The vehicles are parking unauthorisedly in front of

the shopping mall of the petitioner. Decisions are taken by Town

and country planning department, Kerala Police Department,

National Highway, Public Works Department, Motor Vehicles

Department and Municipal Corporation for allotting separate parking

area in Kollam corporation."

3. Sri.Saju J. Panikar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

submitted that in view of the statement filed by the 1st respondent, the

respondents are bound to initiate appropriate action against those persons who

park the vehicles in front of the establishment of the petitioner unauthorisedly. He

would point out that this Court in Mathew P.D v. State of Kerala and Others

[2019 (5) KHC 242] had occasion to consider the relevant provisions of law and to

issue specific directions. He submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if

directions are issued to the 4th respondent to consider the representation filed by

the petitioner in the light of Mathew P.D. (supra) and take appropriate action.

4. I have heard the learned Government Pleader who appears for

respondents 2 and 3 and Sri. M.K.Chandramohan Das, the learned standing counsel

appearing for the 1st respondent.

5. From the statement filed by the 1st respondent it is apparent that the

parking of vehicles in front of the shopping mall of the petitioner is unauthorised.

It is also seen that various departments have taken a decision to allot separate

parking areas within the limits of Kollam Corporation. A Division Bench of this Court

in Noushad M. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. [2019 (2) KHC 562] had

occasion to observe that permitting vehicles to be parked unauthorisedly in front of

the business establishment or houses obstructing their private right abetting the

highway is not at all justified. This would affect the rights of the petitioner and his

tenants to have free access to the adjacent road.

Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to

ensure that there is no unauthorised parking in front of 'Holy Star Shopping Mall'

owned by the petitioner and situated at Chinnakada, Kollam. Appropriate

signboards shall be placed notifying that parking in the area is unauthorised.

However, this shall not prevent the 4th respondent to issue orders not inconsistent

with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Kerala Road Safety Act

to regulate the manner and means of entry from streets and public places to

private buildings and places on the road side.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE sru

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

 EXHIBIT P1             THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX PAID
                        FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 TO THE 1ST
                        RESPONDENT

 EXHIBIT P2             THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID FOR THE
                        PERIOD 2019-20

 EXHIBIT P3             THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
                        14.11.2019 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH
                        RESPONDENT

 EXHIBIT P4             THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
                        5.12.2019 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

 EXHIBIT P5             THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
                        5.12.2019 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

 EXHIBIT P6             THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
                        5.12.2019 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL



                                          //TRUE COPY//

                                           P.A TO JUDGE