The Kerala High Court on Monday raised concerns over the Greater Cochin Development Authority's (GIDA) proposal to construct 20 commercial kiosks along the footpath at Queen's Walkway, Kochi. Justice Bechu Kurian further asked GIDA officials to produce records establishing its authority over the road and details of the project.

The court was considering a plea filed by the Tritvam Apartment Owners Association and its president, who contended that the proposed kiosks would alter the residential character of the area, overburden civic infrastructure and lead to traffic congestion, apart from posing health and safety risks.

The court had earlier ordered maintenance of the status quo, restraining authorities from proceeding with any construction or installation of kiosks on the pathway. During the hearing, the court orally questioned GIDA on its authority to undertake the project. It asked whether the road had been formally transferred to GIDA and directed it to produce records to substantiate its claim.

"You cannot have arbitrary power to convert a footpath into a commercial area," the court observed, while also seeking details of the width of the road and the footpath, and the space proposed for kiosks. It noted that mere oral submissions would not suffice and that the claims must be supported by documentary evidence.

GIDA, in its counter affidavit, submitted that the project was intended to promote tourism. It also contended that the kiosks were not being placed on the roadside but on duct space located between the pedestrian walkway and adjacent land owned by the authority. The court, however, expressed reservations, observing that internationally, commercial kiosks are not typically set up on footpaths. It remarked that pedestrian spaces are meant for walking, recreation and public use, and should not be compromised for commercial purposes.

The court further noted that if GIDA required space for commercial activity, it could explore other areas rather than encroaching upon pedestrian pathways. It also observed that land in the area may have been utilised or sold for other purposes, and questioned the decision to use footpath space for kiosks.

Referring to a public walkway near Panampilly Nagar, the court pointed out that earlier attempts to introduce similar kiosks had been restricted by the High Court. It observed that the walkway, now used by the public, was gradually facing pressure from commercial activity and parking.

The court also rejected GIDA's argument that revenue generated from kiosks was necessary for maintaining the road. It observed that alternative means of generating income must be explored and emphasised the application of the public trust doctrine. "Footpaths are meant for pedestrians," the court said, adding that such public spaces must be preserved for maximum public benefit. The court directed GIDA to produce documents showing its authority over the road, along with plans indicating that the footpath would not be used for the construction of kiosks.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on March 31. Advocates S Muhammed Haneeff, M H Asif Ali, Ashik Ali M H, Aswathi K C and Vismaya Jayaraj appeared for the petitioners, while senior advocate George Poonthottam represented GIDA.
(With LiveLaw inputs)