[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rajesh Babu vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 2026
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
W.P.(C) No.2050/26 1
2026:KER:32166
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 2050 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
RAJESH BABU
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O BABU,
KARTHIKA VEEDU,
KOTTAPURAM, KOTTARAKKARA,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691506
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.REJI
SHRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
SRI.B.BIPIN
SRI.ARUN BOSE
SMT.JEENA A.V.
SHRI.ARJUN R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, T D NAGAR,
VIDYA NAGAR, KOLLAM , PIN - 691013
3 THE SECRETARY
KOTTARAKKARA MUNICIPALITY,
KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691506
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
KOLLAM DISTRICT POLICE GROUND,
W.P.(C) No.2050/26 2
2026:KER:32166
KOLLAM RURAL, KOLLAM., PIN - 691001
5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION,
KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691506
6 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (JRTO)
KOTTARAKKARA, POLACHIRA BUILDING,
MARKET JUNCTION, KOTTARAKKARA,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691506
7 SABARI
OWNER AND SOLE PROPRIETOR,
LANDMARK ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS,
OPPOSITE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, PULAMON P.O
KOTTARAKKARA, PIN - 691531
*8 TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE,
KOTTARAKKARA MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
KOTTARAKARA MUNICIPAL OFFICE,
KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 691506
*(ADDL.R8 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
20.01.2026 IN WP(C) 2050/2026).
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GOVT. PLEADER
SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR (THONNALLOOR)
SHRI.RENJITH R. NAIR (KOLLAM)
SRI.SANOJ R. NAIR
SRI.SREEJITH R.NAIR
SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.03.2026, THE COURT ON 10.04.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.2050/26 3
2026:KER:32166
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.2050 of 2026
---------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2026
JUDGMENT
Petitioner seeks for a declaration that the unauthorised parking of
vehicles in front of his shop room, obstructing his private right, as illegal.
Petitioner also seeks for the grant of police protection for carrying out his
business in his shop, after stopping and removing the illegal parking of
vehicles by the 7th respondent.
2. Petitioner is a tenant of shop room Nos.9/626 and 9/632 of
Kottarakkara Municipality wherein he is running an electronic showroom
and service centre and other telecom related services. According to the
petitioner, the 7th respondent, who is an Architect and Structural
Engineer, frequently parks his vehicle in such a manner that the frontage
of the petitioner's showroom is completely covered and access to his
shop room is partially blocked, thereby preventing customers from
entering the petitioner's shop. The petitioner alleges that the 7th
respondent has a shop room behind his shop and he parks his vehicles in
such a manner that it blocks the common way to the petitioner's shop
room. Petitioner further states that the illegal parking is not authorised
under any statutory procedure and constitutes an obstruction to public
2026:KER:32166
way and is a public nuisance violating the provisions of various statutes.
He had filed a complaint to the Municipality pointing out the obstruction.
He also stated that he had filed a complaint before the fifth respondent
pointing out the obstruction and requesting adequate police protection to
exercise his right. Despite the above two complaints, no action has been
taken so far. Relying upon the decision in Noushad M. and Others v.
State of Kerala (2019 (2) KHC 562), petitioner asserts that he has an
enforceable private right for free access to the road in front of his shop
room and preventing such access, is illegal and hence the police ought to
interfere and grant protection.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 7 th respondent, refuting
the contention that there has been any illegal parking of vehicles causing
obstruction to the business concern of the petitioner. It is also averred
that the 7th respondent is a tenant occupying shop room No.9/627
conducting an Architectural Structural Engineer Office, which room forms
part of the same building in which the petitioner is also a tenant. The
petitioner and the 7th respondent are tenants under the same landlady.
The 7th respondent has denied the allegation of illegal blockage of access
and on the other hand has asserted that he also has a right to park
vehicles in front of the building and further that he parks his vehicle only
when he attends to his office. It is further asserted that the private right
of the petitioner has never been obstructed by the 7th respondent.
2026:KER:32166
4. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner denying the
contentions in the counter affidavit and also averred that parking of
vehicles by the 7th respondent is not occasional but is persistent and
deliberate that the same constitutes an invasion to the right of free
ingress and egress of the petitioner to his shop.
5. I have heard Sri.R.Raji, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George, the learned Government Pleader,
Sri.M.Rajendran Nair on behalf of the 7 th respondent as well as
Sri. M.K.Chandramohan Das, the learned counsel for the 8th respondent.
6. Concededly, petitioner and the 7th respondent are tenants of the
same building. In such circumstances, both have got a right to park their
vehicles in front or near the building wherever such area is earmarked.
Therefore it cannot be said that parking of vehicles by the 7 th respondent
is illegal.
7. The only question that remains is whether the parking is in such
a manner that it restricts the access to the petitioner's property.
Enforcement of access to the petitioner's shop room is a private right,
which has to be enforced through the civil court. The attempt of the
petitioner through this writ petition is to enforce his private right. The
jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised to enforce a private
right which is being allegedly obstructed by another private person.
Hence, the declaration as well as the police protection sought for by the
2026:KER:32166
petitioner, cannot be granted in exercise of the power under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed.
It is clarified that the private rights, if any, of the petitioner has not
been determined in this judgment and the same is left open for
consideration by the appropriate court as and when such an issue arises
for consideration.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
2026:KER:32166
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 2050 OF 2026
PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT FOR SHOP NO.
9/626 DATED 11-11-2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT FOR SHOP NO.
9/632 DATED 10-12-2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.01.2026
BEFORE THE KOTTARAKKARA MUNICIPALITY.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE E COMPLAINT DATED 13.01.2026
BEFORE THE SHO KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
OF COMPLAINT ISSUED BY KERALA POLICE, NO.
15293019-2026-5-00150 DATED 13/01/2026
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE
PARKING OF MAHINDRA MULTI UTILITY VEHICLE
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE
ILLEGAL PARKING OF THAR JEEP VEHICLE
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH DATED 03-02-2026
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH DATED 04-02-2026
RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R7 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE RENT DEED DATED 6/8/2025 IN
