Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the first respondent in his proceedings No.N.K.No.DCD/No.2/50/954/2002 dated 14.2.2002 and to quash the same. 2.The petitioner is having its administrative office at Armenian Street. Originally in front of his office, there was no parking area. Later on, in view of the representation made by the second respondent, auto rickshaw stand was formed in front of the administrative office. Aggrieved by the order of the first respondent permitting the second respondent association to establish an auto rickshaw stand in front of his administrative office, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that all along there was no parking lot in front of their office. Suddenly, the second respondent gave a petition and the impugned order has been passed within a few days. Due to passing of this impugned order auto rickshaws are parked in front of his office and it affects free flow of traffic as well as ingress and egress to the office of the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed to cancel the impugned order. 4.The writ petitioner has no right to challenge this impugned order because the parking lot has been allotted on the public road and it is for the authorities to decide whether to permit or not to permit the parking lot. If it affects the entry of the petitioner's office, they can give objection to the authorities concerned. Admittedly the parking lot is blocking only the side entrance of the petitioner office. The petitioner can prefer an appeal to the first respondent to change the parking place. But as a matter of right, the same cannot be enforced. 5. Further it is stated that the impugned order is valid only for a period of one year and that period has been already over. As such, the petitioner has right to make representation. However, it is stated that the representation has already been made by the petitioner to the first respondent. In the circumstance, it is for the first respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner and dispose of it in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. However, it is stated that the representation has already been made by the petitioner to the first respondent. In the circumstance, it is for the first respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner and dispose of it in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.