Kerala High Court
M. Saheer vs State Of Kerala on 21 September, 2011
Author: K.Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/28TH BHADRA 1934
WP(C).No. 28384 of 2011 (W)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
M. SAHEER, S/O. E.A. MOHAMMED,
M.A. BUILDING, VALIYAKADA, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK,
CHIRAYINKEEZHU.
BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA
RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. CHIRAYINKEEZHU GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHIRAYINKEEZHU,
PIN-695 304.
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHIRAYINKEEZHU-695 304.
4. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
ATTINGAL-695 101.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT M.T.SHEEBA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 19-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 28384 of 2011 (W)
A P P E N D I X
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PARKING OF THE AUTORIKSHAWS IN
FRONT OF THE PETITIONERS SHOP.
EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21-09-2011
SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21-09-2011
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21-9-2011 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD INDICATING
THE RECEIPT OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21-9-2011 BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD
INDICATING THE RECEIPT OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 21-9-2011 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD
INDICATING THE RECEIPT OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
21-9-2011 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A TO JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P(c) No.28384 of 2011-W
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th September, 2012
J U D G M E N T
According to the petitioner, himself and prior to him, his father, have been conducting a provision store by name - `Aneesa Store' (Door No.CP.IV/313) in a building called the M.A Complex, for the past 40 years. The complaint of the petitioner is that though there is an authorised parking area for autorickshaws, located barely 250 metres away, the auto rickshaws are all parked in front of his shop, obstructing the ingress to and egress therefrom. The petitioner's father passed away on 14.07.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner has been conducting the business. It is the case of the petitioner that because of the unauthorised parking of autorickshaws along the entire road frontage of his shop room, his business has been seriously affected. The petitioner has submitted Exts.P2 to P4 complaints to respondents 2, 3 and 4 respectively. However, no action has been taken on his complaints.
W.P(c) No.28384 of 2011-W 2
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a Division Bench decision (unreported) of this Court in Jose K.P and others V. State of Kerala and others (to which I was also a party) to contend that appropriate directions may be issued to the respondents to prevent the autorickshaw drivers from parking their vehicles in front of the petitioner's shop room.
3. All the respondents have been served with notice. However, only the 1st respondent is represented by the learned Government Pleader. The others have not chosen to enter appearance or to contest this Writ Petition. Therefore, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to the relief that he has sought for.
4. It cannot be denied that the road frontage of a property or a shop room is the most valuable asset thereof. It is the situation of a property or shop room abutting a public road that enhances the value of the property. It is for the said reason that similar properties situate on the side of important roads fetch more price than properties abutting side roads of lesser importance. It also cannot be disputed that the owner or occupier of a property abutting a road is entitled to claim the benefit of every inch of his road frontage. It is up to the W.P(c) No.28384 of 2011-W 3 authorities to designate a parking place for autorickshaws and other vehicles. Autorickshaws cannot be permitted to occupy the space in front of the petitioner's shop room claiming that they are only occupying a portion of the public road or that they are not obstructing the entry or exit of the customers coming to the petitioner's shop. The frontage of the petitioner's shop is a valuable asset that is available to it by virtue of its situation by the side of an important road and is certainly an amenity which cannot be denied to him. Parking of autorickshaws in the manner seen in Ext.P1 photograph causes obstruction to the unhindered enjoyment of the said amenity. Therefore, there is no justification for the inaction of the respondents on the complaints submitted by the petitioner. I notice that in the judgment relied on by the petitioner in Jose K.P v. State of Kerala and others dated 29.03.2012, a Division Bench of this Court has issued the following direction:
"This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The police shall take necessary action to ensure that there is no unauthorised parking of autorickshaws in front of the Kizhakkekotta Shopping Complex belonging to the Thrissur Corporation. We remind the authorities W.P(c) No.28384 of 2011-W 4 concerned of the need to immediately provide facilities for authorised parking in that locality for autorickshaws in the interest of the Autorickshaw drivers/permit holders and the public."
5. I do not find any reason for denying petitioner the above relief.
For the above reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 are directed not to permit autorickshaws to be parked in front of the petitioner's shop room, to remove the obstruction created by the unauthorised parking of autorickshaws as evidenced by Ext.P1 forthwith and to ensure that the road frontage of the petitioner is kept free of any obstruction.
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/