The Traffic Regulatory Committee has the jurisdiction to determine parking spaces and the court cannot intervene in its decisions.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

" i) Call for the records pertaining to Ext.P6 and quash the same by issue of a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction;

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to convene a meeting afresh and re-consider the complaint filed by the 1st petitioner in accordance with law;

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the official respondents to remove and prevent unauthorized parking/auto stand on the public road abutting the petitioners’ residential and commercial property;

iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the official respondents to ensure that no auto- rickshaw stand or unauthorized parking is permitted or allowed to be re-established in front of the petitioners’ property in future, and to take effective enforcement action for the same. "

[SIC]

2. The main grievance is against Ext.P6. Ext.P6 is a proceeding of the Traffic Regulatory Committee. It will be better to extract the decision of the Traffic Regulatory Committee.

" ഓട്ട(cid:5)ോറിക്ഷ പോർക്കിംഗ് സംബന്ധിച്ച പരോതിക്കോരനോയ ശ്രീ.ഋത്വๅക്കിന്റെ(cid:30) വീടിന്റെ(cid:30) ട്ടഗറ്റിൻന്റെറ മുന്നിൽ നിന്നും ടി യോന്റെ(cid:30) (hotel) കടയുന്റെട മുന്നിൽ നിന്നും മോറ്റി ഓട്ട(cid:5)ോറിക്ഷകൾ പോർക്ക് ന്റെ2യ്യുന്നതിനും ടി സ്ഥലം ന്റെപയി(cid:30)് ഉപട്ടയോഗിച്ച്

മോർക്ക് ന്റെ2യ്യുന്നതിനും തീരുമോനിച്ചു് ."

3. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration on

23.09.2025, this Court passed the following order:

" I . A.No.1 of 2025 Heard; for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the application is allowed. The Registry is directed to carry out the correction in the name of the 1^st respondent.

W.P.(C) No . 32296 of 20 25

2. The learned Standing for respondents 1 and 7 prays time to file a counter affidavit. 3. On a consideration of the facts and the materials on record, especially that Ext.P6 decision passed by the 1^st respondent, I direct the 4^th respondent – Station House O that Ext.P6 decision passed by the 1^st respondent is complied with in its letter and spirit.

Post on 03.11.2025."

4. Now, the petitioner appeared in person. The petitioner submitted that the Ext.P6 decision will not redress the grievance of the petitioner. I am not in a position to accept that contention. The Traffic Regulatory Committee is the proper authority to decide about the parking of vehicles, allotting parking space to vehicles etc. This Court cannot sit in appeal against the decision taken by the Traffic Regulatory Committee. Only the Traffic Regulatory Committee can decide whether a parking space is to be shifted or whether the parking space is to be continued. The Traffic Regulatory Committee clearly stated that the parking space in front of the premises of the petitioner will be changed and separately marked. These are findings of facts by the Traffic Regulatory Committee based on a situation in a particular place. This Court cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of Constitution of India against the order. There is no merit in this case, hence, this writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-