'People Need Open Spaces': Kerala High Court Pulls Up Development Authority Over Kiosks On Queen's Walkway, Orders Status Quo

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (February 24) orally remarked that the people in Ernakulam are being harmed with the conversion of areas kept aside for public benefit into commercial spaces, including the proposed construction of 20 kiosks in the 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 then orally remarked that the natural beauty of the area is being destroyed with the introduction of commercial spaces and that is harming the public. It also asked the Goshree Islands Development Authority (GIDA) to file its objection.

The Standing Counsel appearing for GIDA contended that these form part of the beautification proposed in the area, including lighting. Hearing the submission, the Court orally questioned:

“You are destroying that place…How can you construct on a walkway? Beautification does not mean construction of kiosk on a footpath. What other space is available other than the footpath on the road?...There is no restriction on lighting or anything but constructing kiosk on a footpath is…Under what law are you permitted to construct a kiosk on a footpath? Footpath must be kept aside only for people to walk, not for your commercial benefits…What harm is being done to the people in Ernakulam. Just travel through that road. Lot of anti-social elements are gathering there at night. You can't walk through the footpath. Becomes so difficult to walk through the footpath at night. Now you want to add more kiosks. So where is the end? That road will become a street vending zone. It's a beautiful area with natural beauty. That should be kept open for public benefit. Public trust doctrine, not for your commercial or private benefit. File your objections. If you justify your cause, we will consider… Please produce all the plans.”

The Standing Counsel pointed to an interim order passed by the Court in 2022 in another plea, whereby the GIDA was permitted to proceed with the construction of kiosks. The petitioners' counsel on the other hand argued that the present issue is with respect to construction of another set of kiosks and the issues here were not considered in that case.

However, the Court was of the opinion that whether this interim order applies in the present case is a matter to be considered later.

The standing counsel also contended that the construction would be on GIDA's own plot but the Court orally observed that in that case, public interest overrides and what the people in Kochi requires is open spaces:

“Even then, can you override the public interest? For constructing kiosk?... How could you even think of constructing such kiosks on a pavement? Blocking the entire pavement? What people need in Cochin is lung space. You are using every area available for your commercial benefits. There are several spaces in Cochin, I can show, these are all being converted into commercial areas. People go all over the world, you will find open spaces, every city will have open spaces, it is called 'lung space'. It is a breathing area. You are converting footpath into commercial streets. You could have done all this by acquiring land and providing space. To construct kiosks. Not take over land for kept aside for public benefit.”

The GIDA told the Court that ₹85 lakhs was already been received by the GIDA in this regard. On hearing the same, the Court orally said:

“Precisely, now the cat is out of the bag. GIDA is making money out of this. I will grant you one week but till then status quo must be maintained… Now, you say that ₹85 lakhs have already been paid to GIDA. Look at the harm that is being caused to the public…”

The Court then pointed out the situation of the Goshree bridge, for the construction of which a huge amount was expended but turned out to be a 'bottleneck'. However, the standing counsel submitted that the said construction preceded the formation of GIDA.

“See, you destroyed the natural beauty of that area for the commercial benefit of raising ₹52 crores for constructing a bridge, a narrow bridge, which has now become a bottleneck. The quantum of money that you raised was enormous but what was utilized for the bridge was minimal amount. Now you are raising further amount by converting the areas set aside for public benefit. It's a narrow road that you have constructed.”

The Court orally commented upon the example of yet another walkway not being properly maintained, the one near Justice Krishna Iyer road, sponsored by Indian Oil Corporation.

“Just see how it is maintained. Nobody is maintaining it. Only the advertisement boards are kept there. Road is not maintained, the walkway is not maintained. But coffers of the authority will be filled. You will get money. Public benefit and convenience completely ignored.”

After hearing the parties, the Court felt it appropriate to grant an interim order directing maintenance of status quo so as not to proceed with any construction or installation of kiosks on pathway:

“Considering the inconvenience that can be caused to the public if commercial kiosks or establishments are set up on footpaths, which are allegedly being carried out under the guise of beautification, this Court is prima facie of the view that, during the pendency of this writ petition, if constructions are made, that can render the writ petition itself infructuous. Hence, there will be a stay of proceedings for construction or installation of any kiosks on the Queen's Walkway in front of the Tritvam Apartment Complex and on the Goshree Chathiyath Road, pending disposal of this writ petition.”

The case is posted to March 23 for further consideration.

The petition is moved by Advocates S. Muhammed Haneeff, M.H. Asif Ali, Ashik Ali M.H., Aswathi K.C., and Vismaya Jayaraj.

Case No: WP(C) 6851/2026

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

Click to Read/Download Interim Order

Click to Read/Download Interim Order dated 14.10.2022 in W.P(C). No.14501 of 2022