1. Owner of a commercial building sought relief against unauthorized autorickshaw parking causing obstruction to access and traffic hazards at a junction in a local area. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 67885
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Murali Purushothaman, J
MAYI VIJAYAN – Appellant
Versus
RAMANTHALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH – Respondent
WP(C) 36481/2026
Important Points
The court directed the local authority to refer a complaint regarding traffic and parking obstructions to the statutory Traffic Regulatory Committee for disposal after hearing the petitioner and other stakeholders.
Subject
Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Police Act, 2011 - Section 72 - Traffic Regulatory Committee - Parking of vehicles causing obstruction to access to building and traffic hazards - Mandamus to consider complaint - Direction to place complaint before the regulatory committee for decision after hearing stakeholders. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, owner of a commercial building, alleged that autorickshaws were being parked in front of the building, thereby obstructing ingress and egress and creating traffic hazards at a junction. A formal complaint was submitted to the secretary of the local government authority, but no action was taken on the matter.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the Chairperson of the Traffic Regulatory Committee to place the complaint before the committee within two weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment. The committee was further directed to take a decision on the complaint after hearing the petitioner and the stakeholders in accordance with the law within six weeks thereafter.
Issues: Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on a complaint relating to the obstruction caused by the parking of vehicles in front of a building and the resulting traffic hazards.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the grievances regarding traffic and parking obstructions should be adjudicated by the statutory Traffic Regulatory Committee constituted under the relevant provisions of the Police Act, after providing a hearing to the aggrieved party and other stakeholders.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, owner of a commercial building, alleged that autorickshaws were being parked in front of the building, thereby obstructing ingress and egress and creating traffic hazards at a junction. A formal complaint was submitted to the secretary of the local government authority, but no action was taken on the matter.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the Chairperson of the Traffic Regulatory Committee to place the complaint before the committee within two weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment. The committee was further directed to take a decision on the complaint after hearing the petitioner and the stakeholders in accordance with the law within six weeks thereafter.
Issues: Whether the respondents should be directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on a complaint relating to the obstruction caused by the parking of vehicles in front of a building and the resulting traffic hazards.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the grievances regarding traffic and parking obstructions should be adjudicated by the statutory Traffic Regulatory Committee constituted under the relevant provisions of the Police Act, after providing a hearing to the aggrieved party and other stakeholders.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
local government and municipal administration
- regulatory control and traffic management
-
local government and municipal administration
-
practice and procedure
- writ jurisdiction (Para 1)
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.V. Jayakumar Namboodiri
For the Respondents: Unni Sebastian Kappen
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.V. Jayakumar Namboodiri
For the Respondents: Unni Sebastian Kappen
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner alleged restricted building access and public safety hazards due to vehicle parking, seeking official intervention from local authorities through a mandamus petition. (Para 1 )
JUDGMENT
1.The petitioner and his wife are the owners of a two storied commercial building with Nos.390A, 390B1, 390C, 390D and 390E in ward No.6 of the 1st respondent Grama Panchayath. The grievance of the petitioner is that autorickshaws are being parked in front of the said building obstructing the ingress and egress to the building. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 complaint before the Secretary of the 1st respondent Panchayath, as evidenced by Ext.P6 receipt. However, no action has so far been taken on Ext.P5. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:
“i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P-5, after conducting a site inspection and considering the obstruction caused by the parking of autorickshaws in front of the petitioner's building and the difficulties created for vehicles turning into the intersecting roads at the junction.
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to prevent parking at the disputed location in a manner that obstructsaccess to the petitioner's building or creates a traffic hazard at the junction.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. In the nature of the order I propose to pass, notice to respondents 1 and 2 is dispensed with.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the President of the 1st respondent Grama Panchayath, who is the Chairperson of the Traffic Regulatory Committee constituted for the 1st respondent Panchayath under Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, to place Ext.P5 complaint before the 2nd respondent Committee within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Traffic Regulatory Committee shall take a decision on Ext.P5 after hearing the petitioner and the stakeholders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks therefrom.
The writ petition is disposed of.
