The petitioners are the residents and owners of property, lying adjacent to an alleged private road, which opens to the Kattakayam road; within the Pala Municipality. The grievance projected in the writ petition is with respect to the parking of pick-up vans in the said private road, obstructing ingress and egress to the owners of the said property as also to the public into the business establishments conducted in the buildings adjacent to the said road. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that there is no public parking place provided by the Municipality in the said road and the parking of the said pick-up vans absolutely obstructs passage of vehicles through the said road and adversely affects the business of the establishments carried on in the adjacent buildings. The photograph showing the unauthorised parking of the vehicles is also produced as Ext.P4 and reliance is placed on Section 472 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1974 as also W.P.(C)No.29359 OF 2013 : 2 :
Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to contend that; without proper identification of parking place and licensing by the local authority, in consultation with the Regional Transport Authority, no parking place can be provided by the contract carriage owners themselves.
3. The learned counsel, appearing for the party respondents, would contend on the basis of the counter affidavit filed that; if the allegation of the petitioners is that the road on which the parking is carried out is a private road, then necessarily the petitioners would have to be relegated to the proper forum being the Civil Court for establishment of such private rights asserted. It is also submitted that there is no traffic as such through the road and that it ends in a cemetery and even going by the photograph, there is no obstruction caused since ingress and egress is possible.
4. This Court does not find any reason for the petitioner to be relegated to the Civil Court, especially since the contention raised is dedication of the road to the public, by the owners of the properties adjacent to the road. There would be hence no question of any W.P.(C)No.29359 OF 2013 : 3 :
establishment of any private rights, but, however, the contention of the petitioners is that no parking place can be carried on without a proper licensing from the local of other authority.
5. The petitioner also refers to Ext.P6, which indicates that there is no parking place licensed by the local authority in the side road, adjacent to the Sulabha super market. The party respondents, however, asserts that it was the Municipality who directed them to park the vehicles in the side road to avoid traffic congestion in the main road into which the side road opens. This Court does not want to enter into a specific finding in this matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since the rival contentions would warrant a proper decision by the authority competent to license parking spaces; after hearing both parties. Local authority is represented by the counsel before this Court, who confirms that there is no licensed parking space in the side road.
6. In such circumstances, the Regional Transport Authority/ second respondent herein, shall, on production of a certified copy of this judgment, as also a copy of the writ petition, issue notice to the writ petitioners as also the party respondents, owners of the pick-up vans W.P.(C)No.29359 OF 2013 : 4 :
who are parking in the said road and after consultation as provided under Rule 344 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, with the local authority, decide upon a suitable parking place within the Municipality for parking of the vehicles. It is made clear that this Court has not, on facts, found that the parking place now carried on is unsuitable, but has merely indicated the hardship projected by the petitioner, especially in the context of the side road having no licensed parking space. It is for the appropriate authority, to decide on the area to be ear-marked as parking place, which definitely should have license from the Municipality. A decision shall be taken, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of.
jes K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge