The Traffic Regulatory Committee must adhere to statutory procedures set forth in the Motor Vehicles Act and Panchayat Raj Rules when designating parking spaces.

JUDGMENT

All these writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment. I will narrate the facts in WP(C) No.16648 of 2021 first. The prayers in WP(C) No.16648 of 2021 is extracted here:

“a. To issue a writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the original of Exhibit P 3 decision/order dated 30.06.2021 passed in the minutes of the Traffic Regulatory Committee of Omassery Panchayat, Kozhikode district, peruse the same and to quash and set it aside.

b. To declare and hold that the Traffic regulatory Committee constituted under S. 72 of the KP Act, 2011 does not have the jurisdiction or power to pass an order fixing a halting place/vehicle stand.

c. To declare and hold that the power and jurisdiction to provide public landing places, halting places, cart stands or other vehicle stands in a Panchayat in the State of Kerala vests with the authority under the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 and the Motor Vehicles Rules (Kerala), 1989, in consultation with the concerned authority of the Panchayat and with the Panchayat under S. 227 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 and the mode and method of such providing of halting places shall only be as provided under Rules 3 to 8 of the Panchayat Raj (Landing Places, Halting Places, Cart Stands and Other Vehicle Stands) Rules , 1995 (Kerala).

d. To command by way of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to consider the issue afresh in strict compliance ofthe directions and propositions of law laid down in the judicial pronouncements made by this Honourable Court in 2019 (2) KHC 562, 2014 (1) KHC 317, 1996 (2) KLT 490, 1978 KLT 813 and other dictums and thus comply with the statutory provisions under the M V Act, 1988 and Kerala Rules, 1989, Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994, Panchayat Raj (Landing Places, Halting Places, Cart Stands and Other Vehicle Stands) Rules , 1995 (Kerala) and the Kerala Police Act , 2011 and to pass such other appropriate order, or take appropriate action in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to these petitioners.

e. To order costs of this proceedings from the respondents.

f. To grant such other remedy/remedies prayed for by the petitioner from time to time and which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the interests of justice.

g. To effectively mould the remedy and grant such moulded relief/reliefs as the interest of justice call for.”

(sic)

2. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P3 decision dated 30.06.2021 passed in the minutes of the Traffic Regulatory Committee of Omassery Panchayat, Kozhikode. According to the petitioner, the Traffic Regulatory Committee constituted under Section.72 of the Kerala Police Act , does not have jurisdiction or power to pass an order fixing halting place or vehicle stand. It is the case of the petitioner that the power and jurisdiction to provide public landing places, halting places, cart stands or other vehicle stands in a Panchayat in the State of Kerala vests with the authority under the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 and the Motor Vehicles Rules (Kerala), 1989, in consultation with the concerned authority of the Panchayat and with the Panchayat under section 227 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 and the mode and method of such providing of halting places shall only be as provided under Rules 3 to 8 of the Panchayat Raj (Landing Places, Halting Places, Cart Stands and Other Vehicle Stands) Rules , 1995 (Kerala). The counsel also submitted that even if the Traffic Regulatory Committee constituted under Sec.72 of the , has jurisdiction, the procedure should be followed as per Rules 3 to 8 of the , 1995 (Kerala).

3. The other two writ petitions (WP(C)Nos.2057 &

8679 of 2022) are filed to remove unauthorized parking of autorickshaws in front of the petitioner’s building denying their right to highway access.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the