The main legal point established was the obligation of the Traffic Regulatory Authority to make alternative arrangements for parking autorickshaws if the front portion of the petitioners' building was not a designated parking space.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 to 6 not to implement Ext.P8 in any manner;

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 to 6 to provide a separate parking area to autorickshaws and further direct the respondents 1 to 6 to ensure that no autorickshaws are parked in front of the shops of the petitioners bearing Nos.139, 145, 146, 147 and 148 respectively located in Ward No.VIII of Sooranadu North Panchayat and by the side of the National Highway 183.” [SIC]

2. The 5th petitioner is the owner of shop rooms along with a residential house situated on the side of Kollam – Theni National Highway 183 in Thekkemuri High School Junction in Sooranadu North Panchayat, Kollam. It is submitted that he has let out four shop rooms to petitioners 1 to 4. In the 5th shop room he is conducting a business. The above building is located by the side of National Highway 183. According to the petitioners, the autorickshaws are being parked in front of the shop rooms thereby paralyzing the entire business in the shops. Ext.P1 has been filed before the District Collector, Kollam pointing out the unauthorised parking of autorickshaws in front of the aforementioned shops is the further submission. No steps are being taken to prevent unauthorised parking which causes innumerable difÏculties to the petitioners and the customers is the further submission. The petitioners had approached this Court earlier leading to Ext.P2 judgment.

3. After Ext.P2 judgment, some autorickshwa drivers and owners approached this Court leading to Ext.P7 judgment. In terms of Ext.P7 judgment, a meeting of the TrafÏc Regulatory Authority was convened. The decision thereon in terms of Ext.P8 in no way removes the blockage caused by the parking of autorickshaws in front of the shop rooms of the petitioners and the side of the National Highway is the submission. It is mentioned in Ext.P8 that a gap of 1.75 meters will be maintained between each authorickahwas. The same will not solve the problem of illegal parking of autorickshaws in front of the shop rooms of the petitioners and the blockage is the submission. There is violation of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (for short, ‘the Act’) is the submission. The petitioners rely on Section 227 of the Act and also the judgment of this Court dated 09.09.2021 in W.P.(C) No.6488 of 2020. Hence this writ petition is filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and

3 and the learned Government Pleader.

5. This Court perused Ext.P8 order. Ext.P8 is a proceedings of the TrafÏc Advisory Committee. As per Ext.P8, certain arrangement is made as far as the parking of autorickshaws are concerned. It is a fact that the petitioners also a signatory in Ext.P8. But the grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P8 is not a solution to the unauthorised parking of the autorickshaws in front of the building. The petitioners are relying on Section 227 of the Act. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat concedes that the place in front of the petitioners building is not a parking place allotted to the autorickshaws. If that is the case, the unauthorised parking of autorickshwas is to be restricted by the TrafÏc Regulatory Authority. As long as the front side of the petitioners building is not a parking space, the parking of autorickshwas is unauthorised. There cannot be any agreement to park vehicles in an unauthorised space by the TrafÏc Regulatory Authority. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this matter is to be reconsidered by the TrafÏc Regulatory Authority. Eventhough notice is issued to the party respondents, there is no appearance for the party respondents.

7. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that if the front portion of the petitioners building is not a