The Kerala High Court has emphasized that its writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, is intended for addressing public law issues rather than private disputes. This was clarified in a recent decision involving a conflict between tenants over a parking space in a commercial building. The case, Rajesh Babu v State of Kerala & ors, was presided over by a Division Bench comprising Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta AK.
The Court dismissed a writ appeal submitted by Rajesh Babu, a shop owner, who sought police protection against another tenant, Sabari, for allegedly obstructing access to his shop by parking vehicles improperly. The Court maintained that such a dispute should be resolved through civil litigation rather than invoking the High Court’s writ powers.
Case Background
Rajesh Babu, operating an electronic showroom and service center in Kottarakkara Municipality, claimed that Sabari, who runs an architecture firm in the same building, was blocking access to his shop by parking vehicles in front of it. Babu sought a court declaration deeming Sabari’s parking practices illegal and requested police intervention to prevent further obstruction.
A Single Judge previously dismissed Babu’s petition, stating that both tenants had equal rights to the parking area, provided their use was in accordance with their agreements with the landlady. Babu challenged this decision, arguing that the municipality was responsible under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to manage parking and prevent obstructions.
Judicial Observations
The Division Bench rejected Babu’s argument, clarifying that the premises could not be considered a public space merely because the public frequently visited the shops for business purposes. The Court remarked, “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.”
More Read
Consequently, the Court found no grounds for police protection since the issue at hand did not pertain to public law. The Court underscored that the remedy under Article 226 is predominantly a public law remedy and unsuitable for addressing private grievances.
Conclusion
The Court agreed with the Single Judge’s decision, reaffirming that the grievances regarding parking should be resolved through civil court channels. The writ appeal was thereby dismissed. Legal representation for the appellant included Advocates R Reji, MV Thamban, Thara Thamban, B Bipin, Arun Bose, Jeena AV, Arjun R, Gautham R Kartha, and Shaji J, while Senior Government Pleader B Unnikrishna Kaimal represented the state authorities.
