Allowed

Ummayya Annangadan v. the Malappuram Municipality

Kerala HC7 Jul 2022WP(C)/30772/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking directives to prevent vehicular and autorickshaw obstruction outside a petitioner's shop. The court converted an earlier interim order into an absolute order, directing authorities to ensure unobstructed ingress and egress and prevent unauthorized autorickshaw parking.

What did the court decide?

The interim order dated 06.04.2018 is made absolute, directing respondents to ensure no unauthorized parking of autorickshaws obstructs ingress and egress to the petitioner's building.

Ummayya Annangadan Vs the Malappuram Municipality — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 5940 OF 2018

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

KANJIRAPALLY CO-OPERATIVE RUBBER MARKETING SOCIETY
LTD NO.K.157
KANJIRAPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,AJESH S PILLAI,
RESIDING AT KRISHANA VILASAM,
EARATHUVADAKARA P.O., MANIMALA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.NOBLE MATHEW
SRI.JOLLY GEORGE

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.

¶9

2 JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KANJIRAPALLY.-686524

¶10

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MUNDAKAYAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686001

¶11

4 DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KANJIRAPALLY-686524

¶12

5 MUNDAKAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, MUNDAKAYAM P.O., PIN - 686 513, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS.SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR GP SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM CHITHRA CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C).No.5940/2018

¶15

¶16

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶17

W.P.(C).No.5940 of 2018

¶18

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 07^th day of July, 2022

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶21

i. Call for the records in the above case.

¶22

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondent No.5 to identify the areas where the vehicles can be parked without causing any hindrance to the petitioner and report the matter to respondent No.1 and 2.

¶23

iii. Issue a writ in the nature of prohibition, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to ensure that there is no parking of any vehicle for a stretch of 30 feet in front of the petitioner's shop.

¶24

iv. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction directing respondent No.5 and 3 to remove all obstructions for the ingress and egress to the petitioner's customers and their vehicles who

¶25

¶26

W.P.(C).No.5940/2018

¶27

are coming to the petitioner's shop.

¶28

v. Pass such other reliefs as are necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶29

When this writ petition came up for consideration

¶30

on 06.04.2018, this Court passed the following order:

¶31

“Admit.

¶32

Post after vacation for the counter affidavit of the respondents.

¶33

In the meanwhile, the respondents 3 and 4 shall ensure that, if the stretch of 30 feet in front of the shop of the petitioner is not forming part of any authorised parking space earmarked for autorickshaws within the Panchayat, then there is no parking of any vehicle in that said stretch, pending disposal of the writ petition.”

¶34

In the light of the same, nothing survives in this

¶35

case. Retaining the interim order dated 06.04.2018, this writ petition can be disposed of.

¶36

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶37

The order dated 06.04.2018 is made absolute.

¶38

The ingress and egress to the building of the petitioner shall not be obstructed by parking

¶39

W.P.(C).No.5940/2018

¶40

¶41

autorikshaws unauthorisedly and on any such action, respondents 3 to 5 will do the needful in accordance to law.

¶42

sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶43

¶44

W.P.(C).No.5940/2018

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5940/2018

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT DATED 2.2.2005 IN WP9C)
NO. 2796 OF 2005.
EXHIBIT P2PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF
THE DIRECTOR BOARD DATED 24.8.2015.
EXHIBIT P3PHOTO PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION
FILED BY THE PREESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY
DATED 26.9.2015.
EXHIBIT P4PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION FILED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT
NOS. 2 AND 4 DATED 1.2.2017.
EXHIBIT P5PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED
BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE
CONCERNED PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO THE
REMOVING OF OBSTRUCTION DATED
15.3.2017.
EXHIBIT P6PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON 19.2.2018
EVIDENCING THE UNAUTHORISED PRKING OF
AUTORICKSAWS IN FRONT OF THE
PETITIONER'S BUILDING AT MUNDAKAYAM
TOWN, SPECIFICALLY ON THE WESTERN SIDE
OF THE MUNDAKAYAM - KOOTTIKLAL ROAD.

Ummayya Annangadan v. the Malappuram Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ummayya Annangadan v. the Malappuram Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pauly Augustin Vs the Secretary, Parakkadavu Grama Panchayath

Sherly S.V Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Mathew, Vs State of Kerala

K.P. Ranjini Vs the Secretary, Thalassery Municipality

Anandavalliamma Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan Vs Rukmini