'What Is Your Authority?': Kerala High Court Questions Development Authority's Construction Of Commercial Kiosks On Queen's Walkway

The Kerala High Court on Monday (March 30) questioned the Goshree Islands Development Authority (GIDA) regarding its authority to construct the proposed 20 commercial kiosks on Queen's walkway.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was considering a plea preferred by the Tritvam Apartment Owners Association and its President, stating that the construction of the kiosks would change the residential character of the area, overburden civic infrastructure and also create traffic congestion, health and safety risks.

The Court had earlier granted an interim order directing maintenance of status quo so as not to proceed with any construction or installation of kiosks on pathway. Subsequently, GIDA had filed a counter alleging that the project is a development project intended to promote tourism. It is also contended that the kiosks are not placed on the traffic road side, but on the ducts space lying between the pedestrian walkway and the adjacent property owned by GIDA.

When the matter came up, the Court orally questioned GIDA:

"First of all, do you have an authority over this road? There might be records transferring this road to you. Convince the Court. You cannot have an arbitrary power to convert a footpath into a commercial area...So what is the area available to construct these kiosks? There must be some plan which you can produce. Please produce it. You can file a Commission application also. Produce the plan tomorrow. Subject to the Municipal Corporation Act, all roads vest with the municipal authority, the local authority. Where is the power of GIDA to permit construction…Where is the plan for the road which says what is the width of the footpath? What is the width of the road? You have said that the width of the footpath is 6.5 metres...This area is not for kiosks. This area is for the pedestrians to walk around and enjoy the beauty...Who gave this idea of having kiosks on footpaths? That space becomes part of the footpath...Produce materials to show what is the width of the road, what is the width of the footpath. You have made an assertion that the width of the footpath is the widest over here."

It was orally observed that all over the world, additional spaces are created for commercial kiosks and it is not created on footpaths. The Court further orally remarked that part of the space sold to the apartment complexes in that area ought to have been utilised for the commercial kiosks:

"There may be other areas available with GIDA to provide such kiosks, which you would have probably sold it for other commercial benefits...All of them you have sold it and on the footpath, you are planning to construct the kiosks. That is not how it is done world over. Pedestrians have to be given space. Probably to walk around, to move, to run, to cycle…You are eating into the space kept for enjoying the beauty of nature...From the materials produced by you, it is not evident. Oral assertion is not sufficient. It must be evident from the records. And you have to tell me how is GIDA the authority over the road or do you have any authority over the road. There must be some record…Convince me. The records are available with you. You are claiming ownership. You have to first establish that." 

The Court also referred to another public walkway that is being protected by an order of the High Court:

"I honestly don't know why this is being done. It is destroying the place. In fact, there is one walkway, because of an order of this Court, it is being protected for pedestrians. That is the Queen's walkway near Panampilly Nagar. There was an attempt on the part of the Corporation or GIDC to construct kiosks like this. This Court interfered and restricted construction. Now, people are using the road and area as a walkway. It has also got about 6.5 metres or more than 6.5 m. But then, now, slowly shops have started coming on the other side and even car parking. It is not just the kiosks alone... People crowd around the shop, throw their waste. I don't know why that beautiful walkway is going destroyed by constructing kiosks."

The Court also refused to accept GIDA's argument that income from the kiosks are necessary for developing the road in question. It orally said:

"If the road has been transferred to you, you should find other means to develop income. Not by converting…You can't say that revenue should be generated to maintain this road…There are other means to…Public trust doctrine will come into play…Footpath is meant only for pedestrians…We may not be using it. But generally, there is a public trust doctrine. These areas must be used, to the maximum, for the benefit of the public."

The matter is posted to tomorrow (March 31) for further consideration. The GIDA is directed to produce the records reflecting its ownership over the road and the plans showing that footpath would not be utilised for the construction of kiosks.

The petition is moved by Advocates S. Muhammed Haneeff, M.H. Asif Ali, Ashik Ali M.H., Aswathi K.C., and Vismaya Jayaraj. Senior advocate George Poonthottam is appearing for the GIDA.

Case No: WP(C) 6851/2026

Case Title: Tritvam Apartment Owners Association (TAOA) and Anr. v. The District Collector and Ors.