The Traffic Regulatory Committee has valid authority under the Panchayat Raj Act to designate parking areas for auto taxies without needing Regional Transport Authority's reconsideration.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners who are auto drivers/auto taxi drivers within the 4th respondent Panchayat have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P11 resolution of the Traffic Regulatory Committee dated 10.3.2014. As per Ext.P11, parking places have been designated for parking of autorickshaws and auto taxies within the Panchayat area. The petitioners are aggrieved by the manner in which the auto taxies have been directed to be parked.

2. According to Sri.P.Deepak, who appears for the petitioners, the Traffic Regulatory Committee has only ordinary powers and the ultimate decision is to be taken by the first respondent, the Regional Transport Authority. Therefore, it is contended that Ext.P11 is liable to be set aside and the matter directed to be re-considered on the basis of Ext.P12.

3. According to the learned Government Pleader, who appears for respondents 1 to 5, the second respondent has already responded to Ext.P12 informing the petitioners that the decision of the Traffic Regulatory Committee has been accepted by the first respondent.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, a communication has been issued by the 2nd respondent but, the matter has not been considered by the first respondent, the authority empowered to consider the same.

5. As per Section 227 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994, the Panchayat is the statutory authority empowered to designate areas for parking of autorickshaws. It is true that as per Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Landing places, Halting places, Cart stands and other vehicle stands) Rules , 1995, the Village Panchayat is to obtain previous sanction of the Regional Transport Authority before designating places as parking areas for motor vehicles. In the present case, the Traffic Regulatory Committee has considered the matter and taken Ext.P11 decision. The matter therefore, is not required to be considered again by the Regional Transport Authority, on the basis of Ext.P12 or on the strength of any other legal provision as sought for in the writ petition. Therefore, I am not satisfied that any direction to the Regional Transport Authority to consider the matter afresh is necessary to be issued. If the petitioners have any difficulty in working as per the decision in Ext.P11, it is for them to move the Traffic Regulatory Committee for appropriate modifications as and when necessary.

For the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.