JUDGMENT : N. ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. Petitioners have filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 1st respondent to provide effective and meaningful protection to the petitioners so as to enable them to park their vehicles at the various existing auto-rickshaw stands and to carry out service free from the threat and violence by the members and sympathisers of the respondents 5 to 7. (ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the third respondent Grama Panchayath to determine the location of parking places for auto-rickshaws and taxis in consultation/concurrence with the respondents 2 and 4 within a time frame to be fixed by this Honorable Court.” 2. The dispute relates to the location for parking place for auto taxis or motor cabs within the Panchayat area. The petitioners are owners and drivers of the new generation of vehicles known as Auto Taxis or Motor Cabs. Respondents 5 to 7 are Trade Unions of the auto-rickshaw drivers plying in and around Athani in Ernakulam District. The third respondent is yet to prescribe any auto-rickshaw stand within its territorial limits. There exists no prescribed auto-rickshaw stand in and around Athani junction. But as a matter of practice, auto-rickshaws are parked on either side of National Highway 47 at the bus stop to Aluva and Angamaly directions and also on the entry point of the road leading to Cochin International Airport. The members of respondents 5 to 7 object to the parking of auto taxis in the above mentioned points. The first petitioner on the strength of Ext.P1 registration certificate and Ext.P2 contract carriage permit of the motor cab made Ext.P5 application before the third respondent seeking permission to park his vehicle at Athani Junction. Being aggrieved by the threat and violence from members of respondents 5 to 7, the petitioners jointly made Ext.P8 complaint before the first respondent on 18.12.2017. Despite the receipt of Ext.P8, the first respondent did not make any investigation/enquiry into the complaint lodged by the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. Fifth respondent filed counter affidavit for and on behalf of respondents 6 and 7. In support of the affidavit, Ext.R5(a) to R5(k) were marked. Despite the receipt of Ext.P8, the first respondent did not make any investigation/enquiry into the complaint lodged by the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. Fifth respondent filed counter affidavit for and on behalf of respondents 6 and 7. In support of the affidavit, Ext.R5(a) to R5(k) were marked. It is contended that the petitioners have no right to park their motor cabs in the parking place specifically allotted for parking of auto-rickshaws. It is also contended that the responsibility of the Panchayat to provide public landing places and stand for vehicles and the petitioners can approach the Panchayat for separate parking area for motor cabs. According to respondents 5 to 7, on 7.8.2013, the Panchayath has constituted and convened a meeting of Special Committee of Police from Chengamanad Police Station, Regional Transport Office, Angamaly and representatives of all political parties and Trade Unions for the purpose of allotting bonnet number of the auto-rickshaws stationed in the eight approved auto stands as provided in Ext.R5(e). It is further contended that periodical meeting of the Panchayath Sub-committee was convened to decide the issuance of permit to auto-rickshaws granting and cancellation of bonnet number etc. as per Ext.R5(i). The dispute regarding the allotment of parking place to the auto taxi was again considered by the Panchayath Sub- committee as per Ext.R5(j) and R5(k). In the said meetings, decisions were taken providing parking area to auto taxis as contained therein. 4. We will briefly refer to the statutory provisions governing the situation. As per Section 227 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the third respondent is the authority to prescribe public landing places, halting places and cart-stands and levy fees for their use. Section 227 of the Act reads as follows:- “227. 4. We will briefly refer to the statutory provisions governing the situation. As per Section 227 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the third respondent is the authority to prescribe public landing places, halting places and cart-stands and levy fees for their use. Section 227 of the Act reads as follows:- “227. Public landing places and cart-stands etc.--Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, the Village Panchayat may - (a) provide public landing places, halting places and cart-stands (including stands for animals and vehicles of any description) and levy fees for their use; and (b) where any such place or stand has been provided, prohibit the use for the same purpose by any person, within such distance, thereof, any public place or the side of any public road as the panchayat may, subject to the control of the Regional Transport Authority, specify: Provided that the previous sanction of the Regional Transport Authority shall be obtained before any stand of halting place for motor vehicles is opened.” 5. The Kerala Panchayath Raj (Landing Places, Halting Places, Cart Stands and other Vehicle Stands) Rules,1995 (for short 'the Rules') provides elaborate rules for prescribing stands for taxis and other vehicles as follows:- 3. Panchayat to invite objections before providing public landing places, halting places, cart stands or other vehicle stands.- (1) A Village Panchayat shall, if it intends to provide any public landing place, halting place, cart stand or other vehicle stand, publish a notice in the notice board of the Village Panchayat and in any prominent place in each of its constituencies requiring the public to raise objections regarding the same, if any, in writing within thirty days and publish the fact of such publication of notice in any two local daily newspapers in the regional language having wide circulation in that Village Panchayat. (2) The notice shall contain the survey number and the extent of the land in which it is intended to provide the landing place, halting place, cart stand, or other vehicle stand. 4. Village Panchayat to consider the objections. - The Village Panchayat shall, in cases where the approval of Regional Transport Authority is not required, consider the objections received from the public within the fixed day and dispose them within fifteen days. 5. Village Panchayat to obtain previous sanction of the Regional Transport Authority. 4. Village Panchayat to consider the objections. - The Village Panchayat shall, in cases where the approval of Regional Transport Authority is not required, consider the objections received from the public within the fixed day and dispose them within fifteen days. 5. Village Panchayat to obtain previous sanction of the Regional Transport Authority. - The Village Panchayat shall obtain previous sanction or the Regional Transport Authority before opening any public stand of halting place to motor vehicles.” 6. In this context, reference may also be made to Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As per Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, the State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government, in consultation with the local authority having jurisdiction in the area concerned, may determine places at which motor vehicle may stand either indefinitely or for a specified period of time and may determine the places at which public service vehicles may stop for a longer time than is necessary for taking up and setting down of passengers. Going by Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 344 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it is within the realm of the fourth respondent to determine the location of a parking place for auto-rickshaws/taxis in consultation with respondents 2 and 3. Section 72 (1) of the Kerala Police Act mandates Traffic Regulatory Committees in every Grama Panchayat, Municipality and Corporation for regulating matters in respect of traffic. Section 72 (2) of the Kerala Police Act provides that the concerned head of the Local Government Institution shall be the Chairman of the Traffic Regulatory Committee and the nominees of the District Magistrate, the District Police Chief, the Regional Transport Officer and the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department shall be the members of the said committee. Section 72(3) provides that the Traffic Regulatory committee shall issue orders, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Kerala Road Safety Act,2007 and the rules made there under, for preventing danger, obstruction and inconvenience caused to the general public in respect of traffic in the matters provided under sub-sections (3)(a) to (3)(g) of Section 72. It is evident from Ext.P4 reply given by the Panchayat pursuant to the information sought invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act that there exists no prescribed auto-rickshaw stand in and around Athani junction. 7. It may be noticed that auto-rickshaw is a vehicle to carry not more than three passengers for hire or reward having less than four wheels. However, motor cab is a motor vehicle with four wheels to carry four passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward. Sri. M.P. Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 7 contends that a four wheeler motor cab cannot be equated to three wheeler auto-rickshaw. Further, separate licence is required for driving auto-rickshaw and motor cab and a person holding licence for driving auto-rickshaw cannot drive motor cab as of right. 8. Be it noted however, Ext.R5(a) and R5(b), the contract stage carriage permits issued to 2nd and 5th petitioners would show that the permits were issued to motor cabs to conduct service on all roads in Kerala. It is a fact that in the case of auto-rickshaws, they can conduct service only within the district. Ext.R5(c) permit issued to the auto-rickshaw would reveal that the auto-rickshaws should be stationed at Athani. Ext.R5(d) specimen contract carriage permit dated 9.9.2013 issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Angamaly way back in 2013 would show that the auto-rickshaw can park in the approved stands at Athani only. The learned counsel for the respondents would further contend that Ext.R5(h) Government Order inter alia fixed separate fare for auto-rickshaws and motor cabs and maintain that auto-rickshaws and motor cabs are two different categories of vehicles having different cubic capacity, seating capacity and hire charges. Hence, it is argued that auto-rickshaws and motor cabs are distinct and separate. Auto taxis for which permits have been granted are designed for all fit roads in Kerala whereas auto-rickshaw permit was issued by the authorities for conveyance of passengers fixing a stand for parking as per the permit. In the light of the above facts, it is not legally correct to direct the first respondent to provide effective and meaningful protection to the petitioners so as to enable them to park their vehicles at the various existing auto-rickshaw stands and to carry out service free from the alleged threat and violence by the members and sympathizers of respondents 5 to 7. 9. 9. One of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 7 is that in the special meetings of the Panchayat held on 6.7.2017 and 28.7.2017 respectively in the presence of representative of auto-rickshaw auto-taxi and Trade Unions, decisions were taken as per Ext.R5(j) and R5(k) to provide parking areas to auto taxis in front of ATH at Angamaly Private Bus Stop based on consensus between the parties. On a perusal of R5(j) and R5(k) decisions taken by the Panchayat, it is evident that the Panchayat has not followed Rule 3 of the Rules. No previous sanction has also been obtained from the Regional Transport Authority. The procedure followed by the third respondent in Ext.R5(i),(j) and (k) are not in accordance with the procedure established by law. The sub committee of the third respondent-Panchayat has no authority to bypass the procedure prescribed by the Rules. 10. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the authorities, which have been empowered to grant such licences and to specify areas for parking, i.e., the third respondent has failed to perform their statutory obligation to earmark authorised taxis/auto-rickshaws/motor cabs stand within their territorial limits as prescribed by the Act and Rules made there under. When the authorities constituted under the Act have not exercised their authority as has been rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is the duty of the Panchayat to take up the issue with the authorities under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Kerala Police Act and the Rules framed there under in accordance with law. Hence the third respondent is obliged to determine the location of parking places for auto-rickshaws and taxis including the vehicles owned and operated by the petitioners in consultation with respondents 2 and 4 and all other stakeholders, if deemed necessary, in accordance with law for providing parking place for auto taxis or motor cabs. The third respondent is also bound to constitute competent committee in accordance with the Acts and Rules cited supra within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The third respondent is also bound to constitute competent committee in accordance with the Acts and Rules cited supra within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Considering the arguments advanced on both sides, in the facts of the present case, we hold that (1) The third respondent is directed to constitute a traffic regulatory committee in accordance with Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (2) The third respondent is directed to determine the location of parking places for auto-rickshaw/auto taxis/motor cabs in consultation with respondents 2 and 4 within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.