Rasheed Parakkal vs. The Secretary, Kottilangadi Grama Panchayath - Kerala High Court, 28 June 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 21191 OF 2020 PETITIONER: R RASHEED PARAKKAL, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.ALAVI, PARAKKAL HOUSE, PADINJATTUMURI, MALAPPURAM-676 506. BY ADVS. ALEX M SCARIA SRI.A.J.RIYAS SMT.SARITHA THOMAS KUM.MINU THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE SECRETARY, KOTTILANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PADINJATTUMURI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 506. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION, FEROKH PALAKKAD HIGHWAY-NH- 213, ANNUNNIPARAMBU, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, KERALA-676 505. 3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. (ROADS DIVISION), MALAPPURAM, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, KERALA-676 505. 4 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, KERALA-676 505. 5 THE AUTO RIKSHAW OPERATORS UNION (AFFILIATED TO INTUC), PADINHATTUMURI JUNCTION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.MUJEEB.P.T., PULIKKATHODI HOUSE, PADINHATTUMURI P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 506. 6 SRI.MUJEEB.P.T. S/O.MOIDEEN.P.T., PULIKKATHODI HOUSE, PADINHATTUMURI P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 506. 7 ADDL.R7.N.K.HUSSAIN

W.P.(C) No.21191/2020 2 (SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED) 8 ADDL.R8.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA E.K AGED 50, S/O.ABU E.K., PADINHATUMURI AMSOM, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 9 ADDL.R9.FAISAL MEMANA S/O.MOEEDU, PAITELLPARABA, PADINHATUMURI (PO), KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 10 ADDL.R10.ANOOJ.V S/O.KARUNAKARAN, VAYALIVEETTIL (H), PADINHATUMURI (PO), KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 11 ADDL.R11.SURESH.P.K S/O.VASU, POTTIKADAVATH (H). 12 ADDL.R12.NASAR.P.N S/O.KUNJIMAYEEN, PALEAMPADIYAN HOUSE, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 13 ADDL.R13.BABUKUTTAN.M. MATHODI (H), PADINHATUMURI (PO), KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 14 ADDL.R14.MUHAMMED SHAFI.K.V S/O.MUHAMMEDALI, VILANGAPURAM, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 15 ADDL.R15.ANOOJ.V S/O.KARUNAKARAN V., VAYALIVEETTIL (H), PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 16 ADDL.R16.ABDUL LATHEEF.P S/O.SOOPY, PUZHAKKATHODI (H), PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 17 ADDL.R17.ABDUL LATHEEF.P.P S/O.HAMSA, PALENPADIYAN (H), PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 18 ADDL.R18.ABDUL MAJEED S/O.ABOO, PULIYANTHODI, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 19 ADDL.19.USMAN.P PARAMBAN (H), S/O.UMMER, PADINHATUMURI POST,

W.P.(C) No.21191/2020 3 KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 20 ADDL.R20.SAIFULLAH.E S/O.AHAMMED, EDAKKUDAMBAN HOUSE, PATTIYIL PARAMBA, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 21 ADDL.R21.JAYAPRAKASH.P S/O.PARAMESWARAN P., POONNAMVEETTIL HOUSE, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 22 ADDL.R22.VIJITH.C S/O.VIJAYAN, CHEMBRATT HOUSE, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 23 ADDL.R23.SABEERALI.C S/O.ABDUL BASEER, CHEMBAN (H), PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 24 ADDL.R24.SHAMSUDHEEN.P S/O.SOOPPY, PUZHAKKATHODI (H), PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 25 ADDL.R25.SURESH BABU.M S/O.GOPALAN M., MANALIYIL (H), PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 26 ADDL.R26.RAVEENDRAN P.K S/O.VASU P.K., POTTIKKADAVATH (H), PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 27 ADDL.R27.SUKUMARAN.M MANALIYIL (H), PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 28 ADDL.R28.MOHAN KUMAR POTTIKADAVATH HOUSE, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 29 ADDL.R29.ANOOP.M MUTHUVEETTIL HOUSE, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 30 ADDL.R30.YOUSF.N.K S/O.MUHAMMED, NADUVATHKUNDIL, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506

W.P.(C) No.21191/2020 4 31 ADDL.R31.SHIJU.P.C PANAMBATTA, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 32 ADDL.R32.SHARAFUDHEEN.K.M S/O.SAIDALAVI, KAKKAMOOLAKKAL, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 33 ADDL.R33.ABBAS.T.K S/O.ABOOBECKER, THAIKATTKUNDIL (H), PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 34 ADDL.R34.RANJITH.P S/O.KRISHNAN, PANJATHODI (HOUSE), PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 35 ADDL.R35.SHAJMON.K S/O.NARAYANAN, KAVALAPPARA HOUSE, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 36 ADDL.R36.MUHAMMED FAISAL.P.P S/O.KUNI MOIDEEN, VELAGA PURAM, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 37 ADDL.R37.RATHEESH.K.K. S/O.NEELAKKADAN, PILAKKADI PARAMBIL, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 38 ADDL.R38.MOHAMMED AFLAH.P.P S/O.MOHAMMED ABDU REHMAN P.P., PADIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 39 ADDL.R39.PEETHAMBARAN.P.P S/O.P.K.RAGHAVAN NAIR, KIDAKKATTE PARANNA HOUSE, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 40 ADDL.R40.ABDUL NAZAR.K.V S/O.MUHAMMEDALI.K.V., KIRIMAN IL BILANG PURATH, MANKADA PALLIPURAM, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 41 ADDL.R41.C.MUKUNDAN CHEMPRAT HOUSE, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 42 ADDL.R42.C.,MURALI

W.P.(C) No.21191/2020 5 CHEAPEST HOUSE, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 43 ADDL.43.MUJIBRAHIMAN.M S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED, PATTIYILPARAMBA, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 44 ADDL.R44.ABDUSAMAD.V.K S/O.SAITHALAVI (LATE), VALAKKUNDI (HOUSE), PANAMPATTA 45 ADDL.R45.VELAYUDHAN.P.C PANAMPATTA, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 46 ADDL.R46.PADMANABHAN S/O.ARAMUGHAN, CHEMBRAT HOUSE, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 47 ADDL.R47.SHOUKATHALI.M.P S/O.AYANU, PADINHATUMURI POST, KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 506 (ADDL.R8 TO R48 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.03.2021 IN I.A.2/2021 IN WP(C)21191/2020.) BY ADVS. SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ SRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL OTHER PRESENT: SR.GP REKHA C.NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2021, THE COURT ON 28/6/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No.21191/2020 6 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner in possession of 10 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.16/2A of Kootilangadi village, covered by Exts.P1 and P2 registered sale deeds of the year 2007. He had constructed a commercial building in the above property located in Ward. No.3 of of Kootinalngadi Grama Panchayat and was allotted Building Nos.320A to F. The above building faces the Kootilangadi Valikappatta PWD Road. Exts.P3 to P3 (e) are the ownership certificates in relation to the above building which was constructed by him for the purpose of starting a super bazar. Since Ext.P3 building was proposed to be used for running a super market, he constructed the building leaving sufficient space in front of the shop room, in addition to the space required to be left as per the building Rules. Trade licence obtained by him was produced as Ext.P4 and GST Regisration Certificate as Ext.P5. The purpose of the above building is shown as starting of super market.

The building is located in busy junction facing main road and a bye lane on its side. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to have ingress and egress from every point of the main road to his property. However, about 100 autorickshaws belonging to different persons are parked in front of Ext.P1 building without leaving any point of access to the building premises. Thus, the ingress and egress to the petitioner’s property and building is completely blocked . Respondent Nos 5 & 6 are the persons leading the above illegal parking. Respondents 8 to 47 are the autorickshaw drivers who are parking

W.P.(C) No.21191/2020 7 their vehicles in front of the commercial building. The photographs evidencing the parking of the autorickshaws in front of the building was produced as Ext.P6. 3. Accordingly, he submitted Ext.P10 representation dated 23/6/2020 to the first respondent, who is the secretary of Kottilangadi Grama Panchayat. Ext.P11 complaint was submitted to the second respondent, the station house officer, on 16/8/2020. Ext.P11 is the representation submitted to the first respondent and Ext.P12 is the same representation given to the 2nd respondent SHO. Ext.P14 was a representation given to the first respondent which was replied by Ext.P15. Ext.P16 was the complaint given by him to the 4th respondent who is the regional transport officer, Malappuram. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of Exts.P1 to P16 complaints given to various authorities ,his grievances have not been looked into and redressed.The prayer sought in the writ petition was to issue writ of mandamus or direction to respondents 1 to 4 to remove the illegal parking of autorickshws in front of Ext.P1 land and Ext.P3 building in a permanent way and by ensuring that the access to Ext.P1 land from Kootilangadi Valikapatta PWD Road is not blocked due to such autoricksaw parking.

Notices were served on all the respondents. Separate counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the some of the respondents. Heard both sides and examined the records.

In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent -Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, it was admitted that Ext.P1 property with the building

W.P.(C) No.21191/2020 8 situated therein belonged to the petitioner. According to Panchayath, autorickshaws stand in dispute has been functioning there for more than 25 years. The area in which autorickshaws were parking on the road side of PWD road had enough width to accommodate them. However, there is no other suitable or convenient place in Padinjattumuri town where the road margin has enough width to park authorickshaws. However, the request made by the petitioner was placed before the Traffic Regulaory Committee headed by the President of the Panchayat for consideration. Though the President tried to settle the issue locally, it could not be settled. Due to the pandemic, subsequent meeting of Traffic Committee could not be held. Thereafter, on the request of the Panchayat, Traffic Advisory Committee met on 23/10/2020 . In that meeting it was decided to invite autorickshaw drivers and the petitioner. However, due to stand taken by the petitioner that he can only permit two vehicles and the remaining five autorickshaws should vacate the parking place so as to get ingress and egress to the building was not accepted settlement could not be arrived at. It was stated by autorickshaw drivers that if the parking was shifted, they would loose their daily income considerably which would affect their livelihood. There are no public or private landing places or car stands functioning in the panchayat as provided under Sections 277 and 228 of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Since no suitable place is available in the Panchayath, the functioning of such a stand is not possible in the near future.

The first respondent Grama Panchayat through its Secretary has

W.P.(C) No.21191/2020 9 filed a counter affidavit stating that the autorickshaw stand in dispute has been functioning there for more than 25 years. The area in which the autorickshaws are parking on the side of the PWD road have enough width to accommodate them. There is no other suitable or convenience place to Padinjattumuri town where the road margin has enough width to park autorickshaws. However, the request made by the petitioner to Advisory committee headed by the President of the Panchayat for consideration. Though an attempt was made by the President to settle the issue locally it did not attain finality. Because of the pandemic subsequent meeting of the Traffic Advisory Committee has been delayed. Subsequently, meetings of the Traffic Advisory Committee were held. However, no decision could be arrived at in that meeting. The contention of the autorickshaw drivers was that shifting of parking of autorickshaws will be equivalent to changing the auto stand itself from the front side of the building. It was contended by them that if the parking is shifted,they will loose their daily income considerably which will lead to further difficulties to eke out their daily bread. It was further contended that no decision could be arrived at in that meeting though the petitioner had obtained licence for running the shop, it has not yet opened. The petitioner purchased the property in 2012 and the building was constructed later. At the time of construction itself, the petitioner was aware that the autorickshaws parking are there more than 30 years. There are no other public or private landing places or cart stands functioning in the Panchayat a sprovided under section 227 and 228 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Since no suitable place

W.P.(C) No.21191/2020 10 is available in the Panchayat, functioning of such a stand is not possible in the near future.

The President of the Grama Panchayat who was also the Chairman of the Traffic Regulatory committee and the supplemental 7th respondent filed a separate counter affidavit. According to him, autorickshaw stand in dispute had been functioning there for more than 25 years. The area in which the autorickshaws are parking on the side of the road have enough width to accommodate them. There is no suitable or convenient place in the town where the road margin has enough width to park autorickshaws. The Traffic Regulatory Committee had convened a meeting on 21/10/2020. It was produced as Ext.R7(a). No decision was taken on that day. Subsequent meeting was held on 23.10.2021 but no final decision could be taken. The stand taken by the 7th Additional respondent was that the petitioner purchased the property in 2007 and the building was constructed thereafter. At the time of construction of the building, the petitioner was well aware that the above said autorickshaws parking had been there for more than 25 years. There was no hindrance for the construction of the building though the autorickshaws were parked there during the days of construction. There are no private or public landing places or cart stands functioning in the Panchayat, as provided under section 227 and 228 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Since no suitable place is available in the Panchayat,the functioning of such a stand is not possible.

An impleading petition was filed by the autorickshaw drivers of the locality by filing I.A.No.2/2021. The application was allowed and they were

W.P.(C) No.21191/2020 11 impleaded as additional respondents 8 to 48. They filed a separate counter affidavit reiterating the contentions raised by the other respondents. The stand of the autorickshaw drivers was that the essential trade unions have not been made a party though the 5th respondent was served with a notice. He is not representing the 5th respondent union. It was contended by the additional respondents that the above auto stand had been functioning for more than 30 years and the autorickshaws have been parking there and many drivers are eking out their livelihood from the same. It was also contended that there is no other suitable place for the auto stand. The said area was a small area with some shops and institutions on either side of the road. There is no other alternative space available. It was contended that the area is a small mini urban area and only few vehicles pass through the main road. The said area was the only space available for the auto stand. No autorickshaws are parked in the front of the building of the petitioner and obstruction is not caused at any other point of access. Ingress and egress is not blocked. This could be evidenced by the photographs produced by the respondents as additional Ext.R6(a). Ext.R6 photographs of the petitioner was taken from an angle. It was contended that, pedestrian’s egress and ingress was not blocked in any manner as is evident from Ext.R6A.

Relying on authorities, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner being the owner of a land has an absolute right to enter his property from every point of his property abutting the main road,, which cannot be interfered with by any other person. It was contended that no

W.P.(C) No.21191/2020 12 right is vested with the autorickshaw driver, who are earning their livelihood and the parking of the vehicles in front of his property was not a collective right of the society, but only an individual right of each individual autorickshaw owner. It was contended that the right of an owner of the property to enter his property from all points abutting the main road is absolue and settled by a catena of decisions and hence liable to be protected as against the individual rights of the autorickshaw owners. It was also contended that it has been held by a series of decisions of this court that in such cases, the court is competent to direct the local authorities to find out an alternative space, as mandated by the various statutes, and to provide a parking area for the autorickshaws. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the statutory provisions contained in the Panchayat Raj(Landing Places, Halting Places, Cart stand and other vehicles stand) Rules, Panchayat Raj (landing places, halting places, cart stands and other vehicle stands Rules. 1995 ( Kerala Rules 3,4.5.6.7 & 8), Section 72 (1) & 2, 3 (a)& (f) of the Kerala Police Act, Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 344(1)B of the Motor Vehicles Rules, and Sections 227 and 228 of the Kerala Panchhayat Raj Act to support his contentions. The learned counsel also relied on the decisions reported in Noushad M. v.State of Kerala (2019 (2) KHC 562) which was reiterated in Navabudeen v State of Police Chief (W.P.(C) No.590/2021 Kerala High Court), Chalakudy Merchant’s Association v. State of Kerala (W.P.(C) 19187/2014), Ummer Ferook v. SHO (2014 (1) KHC 317), M.V.Joseph v. District Magistrate (1996 (2) KLT 490) & Tanur Panchayat v. Kunjima Kutty (1978 KLT 813) to

W.P.(C) No.21191/2020 13 support his contention that the owner of the land has access to his property from every point abutting the main road and also to contend that no other person is entitled to block his right of ingress and egress, if they do so, the statutory authorities are bound to remove the obstructions.

10.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the auto stand had been there for more than 25 years and autorickshaws were being parked there uninterruptedly. It was also contended that the autorickshaw owners are catering the public interest and though the owner of the land has a right to ingress and egress, once he construct a building and throws open user of the building for public, public at large are entitled to enter the plot through every point and the drivers of the vehicles run for the benefit of public can park vehicles in front of the building. It was also contended that the autorickshaw drivers are not catering to their personal interest, but catering to the interest of the public, who have right to access to the building which is kept open for the public and thereby their public right has to be treated as pre dominant over the personal right of the owner of the land. It was further contended that in a city wherein lot of shops and commercial establishments are there, if each of the building owner takes up such a contention, the public will be deprived of their right to access their building and thereby their fundamental right of freedom of movement would be restricted. It was also further contended that, in the absence of any other suitable parking place available in the locality, the owners of the autoricksaw who are catering to the interest of the public should remain predominant and

W.P.(C) No.21191/2020 14 individual right of a private person should be subservient to such a right. It was also contended that sufficient parking space was available in front of the building which was not obstructed in any manner.

11.

Admittedly autoricksaws are parked on the road side abutting the property fo the petitioner. The crucial question is whether such a parking obstructs the entry to property of petitioner. Though divergent contentions were taken up by both sides, photographs produced by both sides itself indicate that autorickshaws are parked in front of the building on the road margin, bumber to bumber and thereby right to ingress and egress directly from the road to each point of the entry is blocked. Entry to the parking area of the building seems to be open only from the by lane on one side of the property. Major portion of building has main road frontage facing the PWD Road. In other words, it is almost clear that the main road is completely blocked and that autorickshaws are parked on the pedestrian area blocking both the entry to the building from the main road as well as the pedestrian way . 12.Though the respondents claim that autorickshaw stand was there for more than 25 to 30 years, which is reiterated by them in their affidavit, I am not inclined to accept it, in the absence of any legal right to the respondents 8 to 48. Even if the existence of the auto stand for more than 25 years is accepted and that the petitioner herein became the owner of the land only in 2007 and that he constructed the building only much later that cannot be treated as reason to deny the right of entry of the petitioner from every point. In Municipal Board Mangalore v Mahadevji Maharaj (1965 KHC 613), the

W.P.(C) No.21191/2020 15 three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the interest of the municipality over the road vested in it. In the above decision, the Supreme Court was called upon to balance the interest of the Municipality to maintain the public road and the right of the private person to have access to its land. It was ultimately held that the Municipality cannot put up any structures on the public way which are not necessary for the maintenance and user of its way. It was also held that, if the acts are unauthorized, the plaintiff who is the owner of the soil would be entitled to ask for an injunction to restrain the municipality from acting in excess of his right. In Tanur Panchayat v. Kunjiama kutty (supra) it was held by the single Bench of this court that the owner of the land adjoining the highway is entitled as a matter of right to private right to access such highway at any point of his land which actually touches it. Highway is not confined to metaled of tarred road, but it will include side lane which is necessary for its maintenance also. This view was reiterated by this Court in M.V.Joseph v. District Magistrate(supra) and Ummer Farook v. SHO, which were followed recently in Chalakudy Merchants’ Association v. State of Kerala W.P.(C) No.19187/2014. 13. In Navabuddin v. State Police Chief (supra) this court after referring to various statutory provisions reiterated the position that in case there is an unauthorized parking of autorickshaws or vehicles in front of the petitioner’s building, despite the “no parking” board displayed by the public works department, the authorities are bound to take steps to ensure that unauthorized parking of vehicles in front of the petitioner’s building causing

W.P.(C) No.21191/2020 16 obstructions to ingress and egress to that building is stopped.

14.

All the decisions referred to above consistently lay down the proposition that the owner of a land is entitled to access from every point of his boundary to the National Highway and no person is entitled to obstruct it. The statutory authorities are bound to remove obstruction in case of any. On the otherhand, the statutory provisions referred to above cast a duty on the statutory authorities to provide parking place for public transport vehicle also.

15.

The contentions set up by the Traffic Regulatory Committee that no other alternative parking area could be identified cannot be accepted. The minutes of the Traffic Regulatory Committee discloses that, the attitude of the statutory Panchayat was to persuade the petitioner to have a compromise on the above issue. It is vaguly stated that no other alternate area is available. The specific areas which were considered by the committee is not discernible from the minutes. Evidently, it seems that no alternate space was considered and no attempt was made by the statutory authority to find out any appropriate locality except reiterating that this was the only area which was available for parking autorickshaws. I cannot appreciate this attitude since the authorities are statutorily bound to provide alternate arrangements. Hence, I am inclined to direct the statutory authority, which is the Grama Panachayat to identify a suitable place for locating the autorickshaw parking, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Having considered the grievance of the petitioner, which I am satisfied is substantiated, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a

W.P.(C) No.21191/2020 17 direction to the respondent Ns. 1 to 4 that they shall forthwith remove the entire parking of the autorickshaws from the area covering the boundary of Ext.P1 building. Since I have already granted three months time to the first respondent to identify the suitable place for parking autorickshaws, three vehicles at any given time shall be permitted to be parked at the one end of the boundary of Ext.P1 property abutting the Highway for a period of three months from today. Respondents 2,3 and 4 shall ensure that at any point of time more than three vehicles are not parked in front of the shop building of the petitioner. If any vehicle is parked, exceeding three or obstructing the remaining portion of the are , the above shall be removed by the first and respondents 1 to 3 and register appropriate case against them. By the end of three months, if a parking space is identified, all the autorickshaws shall thereafter be shifted to parking lot If no space is identified within the above three months time, the respondents 1 to 4 shall ensure that all the autorickshaws are cleared off from the frontage of Ext.P1 building after the expiry of three months from today. If any vehicle is found parked, appropriate action shall be taken against such driver/owner . The respondents 8 to 48 will be bound to comply with the above directions. The writ petition is disposed of above. SUNIL THOMAS,Judge dpk

W.P.(C) No.21191/2020 18 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21191/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURE EXHIBIT P1OF SALE DEED DATED 29.03.2007 BEARING NO.947/2007 OF MAKKARAPPARAMBU SRO. EXHIBIT P2OF SALE DEED DATED 23.06.2007 BEARING NO.2071/2007 OF MAKKARAPPARAMBU SRO. EXHIBIT P3 TO P3COF OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATES DATED 21.08.2020 IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE TRADE LICENCE DATED 07.07.2020 BEARING NO.259/2020-2021/A- 7/2434/20 OBTAINED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.32BOFPR4350J1ZW OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER FROM GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDING WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE AUTO RICKSHAWS ILLEGALLY PARKED IN FRONT OF THE EXHIBIT P3 BUILDING. EXHIBIT P7OF THE REPORTED JUDGMENT IN MUNICIPAL BOARD V. MAHADEOJI (AIR 1965 SC 1147) PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE APEX COURT. EXHIBIT P8OF THE REPORTED JUDGMENT IN TANOOR PANCHAYAT V. KUNHAIMUTTY (1978 KLT 813). EXHIBIT P9OF THE REPORTED JUDGMENT DATED 23.07.2019 IN P.D.MATHEW V. STATE OF KERALA. EXHIBIT P10 AOF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.06.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P11OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.2236

W.P.(C) No.21191/2020 19 OF 2020 DATED 23.06.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 AOF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.08.2020 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT BEARING NO.RL9002888601N ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT P14 AOF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.08.2020 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P15OF THE RESPONSE TO EXHIBIT P14 LETTER DATED 19.08.2020 BEARING NO.G1/3357/2020 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P16OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.08.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P17OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT BEARING NO.RL873287425IN ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT R6 AOF PHTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OR WRIT PETITIONER.