THROUGH the Judgement of the case- Rajesh Babu v.State of Keralam, the Principal Secretary, Local –self Department and seven others, delivered on May 19, 2026, Justices, Dr A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Preeta A K have dismissed the writ petition filed by Rajesh Babu (50), at the Keralam High Court, or the remedy under Article 226, stating that 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. According to the HC, the remedy of writ is used for enforcement of various rights of the public against the State, within meaning of the term Article 12 of the Constitution of India or to compel public/statutory authorities to discharge their duties and to act within their bounds.

 

The remedy of writ may be used to seek justice when there is wrongful exercise of public power or a refusal to perform public duties. As in this case, such a situation does not arise, the Court finds itself in complete agreement with the view taken by the Single Judge in the impugned judgement. The writ petition, in this case, was filed assailing the judgement of the Single Judge whereby the Single Judge has decided against the exercise of his discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the reliefs sought for are purely private in nature and are not amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant is a tenant of shop room Nos. 9/626 and 9/632 of Kottrakkara Municipality where he is running an electronic showroom and service centre.

 

The 7th respondent- Sabari, Architects and Engineers, is also a tenant in the same building and according to the appellant, the 7th respondent is illegally parking his vehicle in such a manner that the frontage of appellant’s showroom is completely covered and access to his showroom is partially blocked. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner and seeking a declaration that the unauthorised parking of vehicles, in front of his showroom, obstructing his private right as illegal and seeking police protection for carrying out the business in the petitioner’s showroom by stopping illegal parking of vehicles by the 7th respondent, his staff and customers in front of his shop. The Single Judge taking note of the fact that both the appellant and the 7th respondent are tenants of the same landlady held that both have a right to park their vehicles in front or near the building wherever such area is earmarked and hence parking of the vehicles by the 7th respondent could not be seen as illegal vis-à-vis the writ petitioner. The writ petition was therefore, dismissed on the ground that enforcement of access to the petitioner’s shop room being a private right has to be through proceedings in a civil court.

 

In the appeal before the HC division bench, the counsel for the appellant urged that the Single Judge failed to apply the dictum in Noushad M v. State of Keralam (2019)2 KHC 562 and that the right of the appellant is backed by the statutory provision under section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder and that Kottrakkara Municipality has a public duty to regulate public spaces and to prevent obstruction and nuisance. The HC has gone through the pleadings in appeal and has perused the precedents cited. As both the appellant and the 7th respondent are tenants in the same building. Thus both have similar rights to use the space available for parking vehicles in the premises of the building subject to the contract entered into between the tenant and the landlady. The premises of the building cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered 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 duty of the statutory authorities does not have any application to the facts of the case. It is also pertinent to note that the judgement relied upon by the appellant pertains to regulation of parking in public spaces and as such the same is not applicable to the facts of the case. 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. Summarising its judgement, the Keralam High Court has made it very clear 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. It is used for enforcement of various rights of the public against the State within the meaning of the term under Article 12 of the Constitution of India 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 refusal to perform public duties. As in this case, such a situation does not arise, the HC division bench found itself incomplete agreement with the view taken by the Single Judge in the impugned judgement. In view of this, the D B appeal has been dismissed.