Establishing parking stands on public roads must comply with statutory requirements, ensuring public safety and access to properties, particularly religious ones.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, the Temple Advisory Committee of Kottiyarmangalam Sree Dharma Sastha Temple under the 2^nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 decision No.4(4) dated 16.01.2016 of the 3^rd respondent Chenkal Grama Panchayat; Ext.P10 proceedings dated 08.08.2018 of the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat; and Ext.P12 sketch prepared by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat for autorickshaw parking at Kottamam Junction. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 9 not to permit or establish an autorickshaw stand in front of the petitioner's temple or at any point the temple property touches the National Highway.

2. On 28.05.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1, 4 to 6 and 8. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice on admission for the 2^nd respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for National Highways Authority of India took notice on admission for the 9^th respondent. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 3, 7 and 10 to 14, returnable by 06.06.2019. This Court passed an interim order directing the 6^th respondent Sub Inspector of Police to ensure that parking of autorickshaws in front of the petitioner's temple is without causing any obstruction to free ingress and egress to the temple.

3. On 12.04.209, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2019, seeking an order directing respondents 4, 5 and 6 to take action against respondents 10 to 14 and their associates for illegally parking their autorickshaws on the eastern side of the temple, thereby creating a law and order problem in the area. The petitioner has also filed I.A. No.2 of 2019, seeking an order to accept Exts.P20 to P23 as additional documents.

4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 6^th respondent Sub Inspector of Police. The 9^th respondent Project Director of National Highways Authority of India has also filed a statement. Respondents 10 to 14 have filed a counter affidavit. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by respondents 10 to 14.

5. On 27.06.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, after referring to the relevant provisions under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989 and the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations , 2017 and taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court inAvishek Goenka v. Union of India [(2012) 5 SCC 321] andS. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India [(2018) 13 SCC 532] and the law laid down by this Court in Saji K.M. v. Deputy Transport Commissioner and others [2019 (3) KHC 836] this Court ordered that respondents 10 to 14, who are plying their autorickshaws on the strength of the contract carriage permits granted by the concerned Regional Transport Authority, have to maintain their vehicles in strict compliance of the relevant provisions under t