The court held local authorities must ensure no obstruction due to unauthorized parking in commercial areas to safeguard business rights.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st Respondent to remove the illegal parking of the auto rickshaws and others in front of the petitioner’s shop rooms, along the sides.

ii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled toget cleared, the obstruction in front of his building caused by the parking of the auto rickshaws along the side of busy PWD road.

iii) Direct the 6th Respondent to form the Traffic Regulatory Committee, if not already formed.

iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or commanding the 1strespondent and 6th Respondents to consider Ext-P8representation and take appropriate remedial action.

v) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Wirt, order or commanding the 4th Respondent to afford enough protection to the Petitioner and remove the illegally parked auto rickshaws parked in front of the petitioner’s shop rooms.

vi) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or commanding the 1strespondent to identify an area conducive to house the Auto Stand.

vii) petitioners may be permitted to dispense with the filing of translation of the vernacular documents;

viii) Pass such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.” [sic]

2. The petitioners own commercial buildings (door Nos. 602 and 603, Ward No.20 – Kanjirakkattumolam). It is the case of the petitioners that because of unathorised parking of autorickshaws by respondent Nos. 7 to 10 and others in front of their shops, ingress and egress to their premises is obstructed causing significant loss in the business to their tenants in the building. It is also submitted that there is no authorised autostand in the said location and no Traffic Regulatory Committee has been constituted as mandated under the provisions of the Kerala Police Act , 2011. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard.

4. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat submitted that there is a Traffic Regulatory Committee in existence now. If that is the case, there can be a direction to the Traffic Regulatory Committee to consider the grievance of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the 4^th respondent will see that the ingress and egress to the petitioners' building is not obstructed by parking autorickshaws.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :

1) The 1^st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P8 after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent Nos. 7 to 10, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2) Till then, the 4^th respondent will see that the ingress and egress to the petitioners' building is not obstructed by the autorickshaw drivers by parking their vehicles.

Sd/-