Private disputes over car parking spaces cannot be resolved using writ jurisdiction: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that its writ jurisdiction is meant to be invoked to address public wrongs, and cannot be invoked to remedy private disputes such as a spat between two tenants of a building over a parking space [Rajesh Babu v State of Kerala & ors].

A Division Bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta AK made the observation while dismissing a writ appeal filed by a shop owner who sought police protection.

The shop owner had alleged that another tenant in the same building was parking vehicles in front of his shop and obstructing access.

The Court explained that the High Court's writ powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are meant to address public law issues involving government authorities or statutory duties.

Since the dispute in the present case was a private dispute between two tenants residing in the same building, the proper remedy was to approach civil court and not invoke the writ jurisdiction.

"It is trite that a writ of mandamus or the remedy under Article 226 is pre eminently a public law remedy and is not generally available as a remedy against private wrongs," the Court said.

Rajesh Babu, the appellant, had rented two shop rooms in a building in Kottarakkara Municipality, to run his electronic showroom and service centre.

According to him, another tenant in the same building, named Sabari, who owned an architecture firm, was parking his vehicle in such a manner that access to his Babu's shop was partially blocked.

Babu thus approached the High Court seeking a declaration that Sabari's parking was illegal and sought for police protection to prevent Sabari, his staff and his customers from parking vehicles in front of his shop.

A single judge dismissed the petition, holding that both parties, being tenants in the same building, had equal rights to use the parking area subject to their arrangement with the landlady. The single judge also observed that the enforcement of parking access rights had to be pursued before a civil court.

Babu challenged the single judge's decision, arguing that the municipality had a statutory duty under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to regulate parking in public spaces and to prevent obstructions and nuisance.

However, the Division Bench rejected his contention, holding that the premises in question could not be treated as a public space merely because members of the public visited the shop for business purpose.

"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," the Court held,

The Court added that both tenants had similar rights to use the available parking space. Since no law and order issue was involved, the Court found that a claim for police protection was unsustainable.

"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," the Court further said.

Thus, the Court agreed with the single judges's decision and dismissed the writ appeal.

Advocates R Reji, MV Thamban, Thara Thamban, B Bipin, Arun Bose, Jeena AV, Arjun R, Gautham R Kartha and Shaji J appeared for the appellant.

Senior government pleader B Unnikrishna Kaimal appeared for the state authorities.

[Read Judgment]