Mrs Jenevive Rodrigues Vs the Panchayath Development Officer

MRS. JENEVIVE RODRIGUES W/O LATE JERALD RODRIGUES AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS POMPEI HOUSE, MALADY VILLAGE POST MADANTHYAR-574224. BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA .K, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MADANTHYAR PANCHAYATH MADANTHYAR-574224. BELTHANGADY TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT.

¶15

(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ACT ON THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.11.2016 ANNEXURE-D AND 05.02.2019 ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:20037 WP No. 9815 of 2019

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed seeking a mandamus against the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 15.11.2016 and 05.02.2019 as per Annexures-D and F respectively and by considering the representations take action to remove all vehicles parking in front of the commercial building owned by the petitioner.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the

¶26

respondent/Gram Panchayat.

¶27

On a meticulous examination of the material

¶28

placed on record, it is manifest that the petitioner's commercial property is situated abutting the State Highway, and it is not in dispute that the structure in question is a commercial building housing various business establishments. The petitioner, being the lawful owner and occupant of the said commercial premises, is engaged in running legitimate business activities and facilitating

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20037 WP No. 9815 of 2019

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

such activities for other tenants operating within the building. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the rampant and unauthorized parking of auto-rickshaws directly in front of the commercial

¶32

complex, which has resulted in serious obstruction to ingress and egress of customers and clients visiting the petitioner's business premises. The obstruction has adversely affected the petitioner’s ability to carry on business in a peaceful and effective manner, thereby infringing the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which assures to every citizen the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.

¶33

It is pertinent to note that the right to trade or carry on business is not an empty formality but an enforceable fundamental right, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sodan Singh vs. New Delhi

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20037 WP No. 9815 of 2019

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Municipal Committee¹ , wherein it was held that any unreasonable restriction on access to business premises, including denial of space or obstruction, constitutes an infringement of the right under Article 19(1)(g). Similarly,

¶37

in Bhanwar Lal vs. Rajasthan Board for Prevention and Control of Pollution² , it was reiterated that obstruction to lawful business due to inaction of statutory authorities is amenable to judicial review.

¶38

The petitioner, therefore, was constrained to submit detailed representations to the respondentPanchayat Development Officer (PDO), Madanthyar Panchayat, on earlier occasions, first in 2016 and again in 2019, specifically requesting the authorities to regulate and prevent unauthorized parking of auto-rickshaws in front of the commercial complex. Despite the lapse of considerable time and repeated requests, the records clearly demonstrate a palpable inaction and indifference on

¶39

1 (1989) 4 SCC 155

¶40

2 AIR 1990 Raj 50

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20037 WP No. 9815 of 2019

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the part of the PDO, who has failed to take any meaningful

¶44

steps to redress the legitimate grievances of the petitioner. The inaction on the part of the statutory authority, despite being put on notice through formal representations, not only reflects administrative apathy but also tantamounts to a continuing violation of the petitioner's constitutional and legal rights.

¶45

In the course of the proceedings, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Panchayat has submitted that the representations of the petitioner will now be duly considered and that appropriate action will be initiated in accordance with law, provided a reasonable time is granted. This assurance, albeit belated, is recorded. However, it is imperative to emphasize that the right to carry on trade or business cannot be rendered illusory by bureaucratic inaction or administrative indifference, especially when the grievance pertains to physical obstruction affecting business operations.

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:20037 WP No. 9815 of 2019

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Recording his assurance, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) Writ petition is hereby allowed ;

¶52

(ii) The respondent–Gram Panchayat is directed to consider the petitioner’s representations dated 15.11.2016 and 05.02.2019, produced at Annexures-D and F respectively, and to take appropriate action for identifying and allotting a designated area for parking of autorickshaws;

¶53

(iii) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶54

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶55

CA

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Mrs Jenevive Rodrigues v. the Panchayath Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Jenevive Rodrigues v. the Panchayath Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Narasimhamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Nasrina Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Anitha J Vs the Commissioner

Smt Vijaya Lakshmi Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri.Girish Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. B.S. Praveena Vs State of Karnataka