The petitioner, owner of a commercial building by the side of a public road complains of unauthorised parking of contract vehicles and auto rickshaws by the side of the road and in front of his building completely blocking his road frontage and means of access. Exhibit P3 photographs show the manner in which the vehicles are parked. According to Sri Shaji P. Chaly who appears for the petitioner, the illegal acts of the vehicles completely diminishes the utility of his property, the road frontage being the most important amenity that is available to him. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate directions for removal of the obstructions. 2. The 6th respondent has filed a statement.
Paragraph 2 of the said statement reads as follows:-
2. It is hereby submitted that stringent action will be taken in the event of the parking in front of the petitioner's building as it is causing any obstruction to the free flow of traffic. No approval is granted for establishment of an autorickshaw stand in front of the petitioner's building. The co-operation of the Local Government Institution is absolutely necessary for establishment of an approved parking place. This respondent is regularly maintaining the traffic at Mundakkyam Town and special attention is being taken to ensure free flow of traffic.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. According to the second respondent, the petitioner's building is abutting the National Highway 220. Therefore, the said respondent does not have any authority to remove the unauthorised parking. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit read as follows:-
4. The allegation raised in paragraphs 1 to 5 and Grounds A to R are misleading, not correct hence denied. It is humbly submitted that the building owned by the petitioner referred to in Para 1 of the Writ Petition is situated at the side of National Highway 220. Earlier the said road was the Kottayam-Kumily Road (K.K.Road) which was a State Highway. Later the same was upgraded as a National Highway connecting Kollam- Theni Road. It is learnt that presently the administration of the said road is entrusted with the 4th respondent-
Executive Engineer (N.H.) Roads Division, Moovattupuzha and with the Assistant Executive Engineer (N.H) Roads Division, Kanjirappally. In the above circumstances it can be seen that the above road is not one which is vested with the 2nd respondent- Panchayat under the provisions of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and hence the Panchayat does not have an administrative authority over the said road.
5. It is further humbly submitted that so far no parking stand as provided under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Landing Places, and Halting Places and Cart Stands and other Vehicles Stands) Rules, 1995 also is provided in the road margin situated in front of the building of the petitioner.
4. I have heard Advocate Shaji P.Chaly who appears for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as well as Sri.Liji J. Vadakedom who appears for the second respondent. Though notice has been served on the other respondents, there is no appearance for them.
5. The pleadings clearly show that, no parking facility has been designated by the second respondent who is the competent authority, in front of the petitioner's building. It is also stated that, the road itself is part of the National Highway 220, the control of which is with the National Highway Authority of India. Therefore, it is stated that the 4th respondent is the competent authority to remove the obstruction that has been caused.
6. The authority that is competent to regulate traffic on the Highways and to take action for unauthorised parking of vehicles is the 5th respondent and his subordinates. According to the petitioner, though representations have been submitted to all the authorities, there has been no action to remove the obstruction. The parking of autorickshaws and other commercial vehicles clearly obstruct the entry into the parking space that has been provided by the petitioner to his building. The shop rooms that form part of the building are also rendered inaccessible. It cannot be disputed that respondents 4 and 5 have a duty to ensure that such unauthorised acts and obstructions as seen in Exhibit P3 photographs are not created. It is only appropriate that the authorities take effective action to keep the frontage of the petitioner's building free of any such obstruction.
For the above reasons, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents 4 and 5 are directed to ensure that no commercial vehicles or autorickshaws are parked in front of the petitioner's building causing obstruction to the enjoyment thereof by the petitioner and his tenants and the public who frequent the establishments functioning from the building in the manner visible in Exhibit P3. It shall be done effectively, if necessary, by displaying “No Parking” boards or by other suitable methods and by initiating stern action against the offenders.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj