Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 31955
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Abdul Khader Panakkat Puthiyapurayil – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) No. 48295 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abdul Raoof Pallipath, E.Mohammed Shafi, Prajit Ratnakaran, Ganga A.Sankar, Krishnapriya R., Anju Dony
For the Respondents: K Janardhana Shenoy, M.Meena John, Lijin Thamban, V. Arya, C.Radhakrishnan
The High Court may decline to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in matters of traffic regulation and public nuisance, instead directing that the aggrieved party submit a formal representation to the competent statutory authority for a time-bound administrative disposal after hearing all stakeholders.
Headnote:The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to prohibit unauthorized parking of autorickshaws causing obstruction to a building and public walkway. The court finds that the issues of traffic management and encroachment are essentially administrative concerns which require deliberation by the competent Traffic Regulatory Committee. The court did not adjudicate on merits but directed the relevant authority to address the grievance. At issue is whether the court should directly intervene in local traffic and municipal regulation matters or delegate the investigation to the appropriate statutory body. The court holds that administrative grievance redressal mechanisms must be exhausted before judicial intervention, ensuring that all affected parties are heard and represented in the decision-making process. The writ petition is disposed of with directions for the petitioner to submit a representation to the relevant municipal authority, which is then ordered to decide the matter within a specified timeframe after hearing all interested parties.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the grievances and the specific prayer for relief against unauthorized parking. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. judicial restraint favoring administrative exhaustion through representations before the relevant local traffic authority. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to forthwith remove and prohibit unauthorized parking of auto rickshaws in front of the petitioner’s building and adjoining buildings near Prabhath Junction, Kannur;
(ii) Direct the respondents to strictly enforce traffic and municipal regulations, ensuring that auto rickshaws use only the authorized auto stand situated 25 meters away;
(iii) Direct the respondents to ensure unobstructed access to the petitioner’s building and free use of the public walkway by pedestrians, especially school children;
(iv) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”.
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved because of the unauthorised parking of autorickshaws in front of the petitioner’s shop room.
3. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation and the counsel appearing for the additional respondents.
4. After hearing both sides, I am of the considered opinion that this Writ Petition need not be retained here. The petitioner can be allowed to submit a representation before the Addl. 5th respondent and the Addl. 5th respondent can be directed to consider the same, with notice to the petitioner and the Addl. 6th respondent within a time frame.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
1. The petitioner is free to submit a representation narrating the grievance raised in this writ petition, before the Addl. 5th respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
2. If such a representation is received, the Addl.
5th respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Addl. 6th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation.
Sd/-
