Allowed

Siddique K.M v. Eriyad Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC11 Oct 2019WP(C)/9043/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to direct removal of autorickshaws blocking access to petitioner's building. Court held respondents must ensure parking stays within allotted school area. Court directed respondents to clear parked vehicles.

What did the court decide?

Directed 3rd respondent to ensure autorickshaws are not parked in front of petitioner's building and no ingress/egress is prevented.

Siddique K.M Vs Eriyad Grama Panchayath — Kerala HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 19TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.9043 OF 2018(E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SIDDIQUE K.M.,

¶8

S/O. MUHAMMED ALI, AGED 53 YEARS, KOCHIKARAN VADAKKE VEETTIL, ERIYAD, KODUNGALLUR P.O., THRISSUR-680664.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL) SRI.K.ABDUL HAKEEM

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 ERIYAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

¶13

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PAY BAZAR, ERIYAD P.O., THRISSUR-680 666.

¶14

2 THE SECRETARY, ERIYAD GRAMA PANCHAYATHPANCHAYATH OFFICE, PAY BAZAR, ERIYAD P.O., THRISSUR-680 666.

¶15

3 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, KODUNGALLUR P.O., THRISSUR-680666.

¶16

4 THILAKAN

¶17

AUTORICKSHAW DRIVER BEARING REG.

¶18

NO KL-47-E-53, RESIDING AT MADATHINGAL HOUSE, ERIYAD P.O., THRISSUR-680666.

¶19

R1 BY SRI.P.K.SAJEEV

¶20

R1 BY SRI.P.M.ABDUL JALEEL KODUNGALLUR

¶21

R1 BY SRI.T.V.SHAJI

¶22

R3 BY SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE, SR.GP. R4 BY SRI.P.M.ABDUL JALEEL (KODUNGALLUR)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C).No.9043 OF 2018(E)

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent to remove the autorickshaws parked in front of the petitioner's commercial building preventing ingress and egress of vehicles and people to his tenant's shop with the assistance of the 3^rd respondent.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents as well as the learned Government Pleader.

¶29

It is submitted that the petitioner has constructed a commercial building and that autorickshaws are unauthorisedly parking in front of the building preventing ingress and egress of vehicles and people to the building. It is further submitted that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 representation before the Panchayat, seeking appropriate action in the matter. No steps have been taken thereon.

¶30

A counter affidavit is seen placed on record by the 3^rd respondent and it is stated therein that the permit granted to autorickshaws was for parking at K.V.H.S. Eriyad. It is also

¶31

WP(C).No.9043 OF 2018(E)

¶32

¶33

stated therein that K.V.H.S. Eriyad is adjacent to the petitioner's shopping complex and that the autorickshaws have been parking in the area for quite a long time.

¶34

The learned counsel for the Panchayat would also submit that the parking space allotted is at K.V.H.S., Eriyad. The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent would submit that since there is no specific place provided as parking area and since the shopping complex of the petitioner is adjacent to the K.V.H.S. Eriyad, parking of the autorikshaws is being carried out in front of the petitioner's building as well.

¶35

Having considered the contentions, I am of the opinion that the respondents are duty bound to see that autorickshaws are not parked preventing ingress and egress to the petitioner's building. Parking is to be confined to parking space allotted, that is, the side of the road in front of the school building. The 4^th respondent cannot contend that ingress and egress to private buildings can be blocked by the parking of the autorickshaws.

¶36

In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal parking in front of the commercial building, it is open to the petitioner

¶37

WP(C).No.9043 OF 2018(E)

¶38

¶39

to make a complaint before the Traffic Regulatory Committee concerned. If such a complaint is preferred, the same will be appropriately dealt with by the respondents. It is made clear that the 3^rd respondent shall take steps to ensure that autorickshaws are not parked in front of the petitioner's building preventing ingress and egress to the building.

¶40

This writ petition is ordered as above.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

Skk//1110

WP(C).No.9043 OF 2018(E)

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT	P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING PARKING OF AUTORICKSHAWS IN FRONT OF THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER DATED ON 16-01-2018
EXHIBIT	P1[A]	A TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING PARKING OF AUTORICKSHAWS IN FRONT OF THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER DATED ON 17-01-2018.
EXHIBIT	P1[B]	A TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING PARKING OF AUTORICKSHAWS IN FRONT OF THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER DATED ON 19-01-2018
EXHIBIT	P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER THE RTI ACT DATED ON 16-01-2016.
EXHIBIT	P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED ON 01-01-2016.
EXHIBIT	P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED ON 26/02/2018.
EXHIBIT	P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED ON 26/02/2018
RESPOND	ENTS' EXH	IBITS: NIL

Siddique K.M v. Eriyad Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddique K.M v. Eriyad Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Elsamma Joseph Vs Rejina K.

M/S. Turbo Systems Engineers and Contractors Vs a.Kowsigan I.A.S.

Akbar Vs K.K.Jolly

G.Ravi Vs State of Kerala

Shaji.P Vs Kozhikode Corporation

Shyma.K.Babu Vs State of Kerala