Dismissed

K.P.Muhammed Ashraf v. the Kannur Corporation

Kerala HC16 Jun 2016WP(C)/37081/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a shop complex owner challenging the Municipality's notice prohibiting parking fee collection. The Court held that without a licence under Section 475 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, the petitioner cannot legally charge parking fees, though they are permitted to apply for one.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to apply for licence to collect fees thereafter.

K.P.Muhammed Ashraf Vs the Kannur… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/26TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 37081 of 2015 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.P.MUHAMMED ASHRAF

¶8

S/O.K.M MUHAMMED, 'SUFASH'OUDENPARAMB,

¶9

SADHU BEEDI COMPANY ROAD, CHOVVA P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶11

SRI.V.VENUGOPAL

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. THE KANNUR CORPORATION

¶14

KANNUR 670 001,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

2. THE SECRETARY, KANNUR CORPORATION, KANNUR 670 001

¶16

R BY SRI.ARUN ANTONY

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 37081 of 2015 (I) ----------------------------

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KANNUR MUNICIPALITY TO THE PETITIONER

¶22

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KANNUR MUNICIPALITY AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ADDITIONAL FLOORS

¶23

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE PROPERTY TAX COLLECTED FROM THE PETITIONERS

¶24

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS SHOWING THE PARKING FEE COLLECTED BY THE PETITIONERS

¶25

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE KANNUR MUNICIPALITY

¶26

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P5

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

jma

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

W.P(C) No.37081 of 2015 I

¶34

¶35

Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2016

¶36

The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is

¶37

entitled to the parking fees for the vehicles parked in his premises. The petitioner built a shopping complex called Capitol Mall wherein the petitioner, as provided under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 has provided parking space. The petitioner due to the unauthorised parking in the area, decided to levy a fee for parking

¶38

vehicles so as to restrict parking of only the customers visiting the premises.

¶39

The Municipality issued Ext.P5 notice alleging that

¶40

the parking fees levied by the petitioner is illegal insofar as Rule

¶41

20 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules provides for provision of parking space and there cannot be any fees levied for the same.

¶42

The petitioner contends that when parking space is provided by the

¶43

petitioner there can be no interdiction of the petitioner charging

¶44

WPC.No.37081/2015

¶45

: 2 :

¶46

fees for the parking. The petitioner also contends that the

¶47

Municipality has been collecting property tax for the basement area.

¶48

The issue is squarely covered by a judgment of this

¶49

Court in WP(C) No.15647/2014 dated 10.11.2014. The learned Single Judge took note of Section 475 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, which prohibits the opening of a private cart stand without a licence from the Municipality. The petitioner too provides a parking area for the vehicles and when levying fees for such parking has to obtain licence from the Municipality. The above decision has been confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A No. 251/2015 dated 5.2.2015.

¶50

In that context, the contention of the petitioner is

¶51

devoid of merit. The writ petition would stand dismissed. However petitioner would be entitled to apply for licence from the Municipality and after obtaining such licence, would be entitled to

¶52

WPC.No.37081/2015

¶53

: 3 :

¶54

charge parking fees, as permissible. If the petitioner submits such

¶55

an application, then, the same shall be considered expeditiously by

¶56

the Municipality. However, till such licence is obtained the

¶57

petitioner shall not collect any parking fees.

¶58

Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶59

Sd/(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)

¶60

jma

¶61

//true copy//

¶62

P,A to Judge

K.P.Muhammed Ashraf v. the Kannur Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Muhammed Ashraf v. the Kannur Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anass Hassan Vs the State of Kerala

Asuntha Mohan Vs K.Sukumaran

G.S.Ammu Vs University of Kerala

Yanganam Parishthithy S.Samithy Vs State of Kerala

Ruby Varghese Vs the State of Kerala

Raghunathan Vs State of Kerala