Tenant’s Grievance Regarding Parking Of Vehicles By Another Tenant In Front Of His Shop Doesn’t Come Within Purview Of Public Law Remedy: Kerala High Court
The Writ Appeal before the Kerala High Court was filed challenging the judgment of a Single Bench.
Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Justice Preeta A.K., Kerala High Court
While dismissing a writ appeal, the Kerala High Court has held that the grievance of one tenant regarding the parking of vehicles by another tenant in front of his shop rooms does not come within the purview of a public law remedy. The High Court further held that only a plea of inconvenience could be raised in such a case.
The Writ Appeal before the High Court was filed challenging the judgment of the Single Judge deciding against the exercise of his discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that the reliefs sought were purely private in nature and not amenable to the writ jurisdiction.
The Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. held, “Except for the plea of inconvenience caused by the parking of vehicles by the 7th respondent, the appellant does not have a case that a law and order situation prevails so as to seek the remedy of police protection. Thus said, the grievance of the appellant regarding parking of vehicles by the 7th respondent in front of his shop rooms does not come within the purview of a public law remedy.”
Advocate R. Reji represented the Appellant, while Senior Government Pleader B. Unnikrishna Kaimal represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant, a tenant of a shop of the Kottarakkara Municipality, was running an electronic showroom and service centre. The seventh respondent was also a tenant in the same building and according to the appellant, the seventh respondent was illegally parking his vehicle in such a manner that the frontage of the appellant’s showroom was completely covered and access to his shop room was partially blocked. The writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking a declaration that the unauthorised parking of vehicles in front of his shop room, obstructing his private right was illegal. The petitioner also sought police protection for carrying out the business in the petitioner’s shop room by stopping illegal parking of vehicles by the seventh respondent, his staff and customers in front of the shop.
The Single Judge, taking note of the fact that both the appellant as well as the seventh respondent were tenants of the same landlady held that both had a right to park their vehicles in front or near the building, wherever such area was earmarked and hence parking of vehicles by the seventh respondent could not be seen as illegal vis-a-vis the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground that enforcement of access to the petitioner’s shop room, being a private right, had to be through proceedings in a civil court.
Reasoning
The Bench was of the view that both the appellant and the seventh respondent were tenants in the same building and both had similar rights to use the space available for parking vehicles in the premises of the building,3 subject to the contract entered into between the tenant and landlady.
“The premises of the building cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as a public space as the same is only a private space accessed by public in the ordinary course of their business. So considered, the provisions regarding the Motor Vehicles Act or the duty of the statutory authorities to regulate public places does not have any application to the facts of the case”, it stated.
The Bench further reiterated that a writ of mandamus or the remedy under Article 226 is preeminently a public law remedy and is not generally available as a remedy against private wrongs. The Bench explained that the writ is used for the enforcement of various rights of the public against the State, within the meaning of the term under Article 12 of the Constitution, or to compel public/statutory authorities to discharge their duties and to act within their bounds. “It may be used to seek justice when there is wrongful exercise of public power or a refusal to perform public duties. As in the instant case, such a situation does not arise, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment”, it held.
Thus, finding no merit in the appeal, the Bench dismissed the same.
Cause Title: Rajesh Babu v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:3448)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates R. Reji, M.V. Thamban, Thara Thamban, B. Bipin, Arun Bose, Jeena A.V., Arjun R., Gautham R Kartha, Shaji J.
Respondent: Senior Government Pleader B. Unnikrishna Kaimal