JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, the Temple Advisory Committee of Kottiyarmangalam Sree Dharma Sastha Temple under the 2nd 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 3rd 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 2nd respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for National Highways Authority of India took notice on admission for the 9th 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 6th 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 6th respondent Sub Inspector of Police. The 9th 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. 4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 6th respondent Sub Inspector of Police. The 9th 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 in Avishek Goenka v. Union of India [ (2012) 5 SCC 321 ] and S. 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 the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, failing which appropriate proceedings will have to be initiated against them for plying vehicles which do not comply with the provisions of Chapter V of the said Rules. It was also ordered that, the 6th respondent Sub Inspector of Police, while ensuring that parking of autorickshaws in front of the petitioner's temple is without causing any obstruction to free ingress and egress to the temple, shall also ensure strict compliance of the provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, in the matter of parking of such autorickshaws. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1, 4 to 6 and 8, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat, the learned Standing Counsel for National Highways Authority of India, representing the 9th respondent and also the learned counsel for the party respondents, i.e., respondents 10 to 14. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is against parking of autorickshaws in front of Kottiyarmangalam Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, which is situated on the side of National Highway-66, causing obstruction to free ingress and egress to the temple. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is against parking of autorickshaws in front of Kottiyarmangalam Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, which is situated on the side of National Highway-66, causing obstruction to free ingress and egress to the temple. According to the petitioner, no permission can be granted to establish an autorickshaw stand in front of the temple or at any point the temple property touches National Highway-66. 8. The petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.3513 of 2017, seeking an order to quash Ext.P3 decision No.4(4) dated 16.01.2016 of the Committee of the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat, whereby it was decided to grant approval for an autorickshaw stand near the temple. The petitioner has also sought for an order directing the official respondents to take necessary steps to remove the autorickshaws illegally parked in front of the temple. Against the parking of autorickshaws in front of the temple, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 14.12.2016 before the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, which was followed by Ext.P5 complaint dated 06.12.2016 before the 6th respondent Sub Inspector of Police. 9. In W.P.(C) No.3513 of 2017, this Court passed Ext.P7 interim order dated 02.02.2017 to the effect that, if the place mentioned in the writ petition is not an authorised parking place notified by the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat, the 6th respondent Sub Inspector of Police shall ensure that ingress and egress to the temple is not obstructed on account of the parking of vehicles. Thereafter, on 11.12.2017, this Court passed Ext.P8 order to the effect that, if there is obstruction to the ingress and egress to the temple, the police shall ensure that obstruction is removed forthwith. 10. A resident of the locality, Smt.Remya, filed W.P. (C)No.1822 of 2017 against the parking of autorickshaws in front of her house. In the said writ petition, this Court passed an interim order dated 11.12.2017, directing the police to ensure that no autorickshaws are parked causing obstruction to the ingress and egress to her house. By Ext.P9 judgment dated 18.12.2017, this Court disposed of W.P.(C) No.3513 of 2017 filed by the petitioner herein and W.P.(C)No.1822 of 2017 filed by Smt.Remya, by directing the Grama Panchayat to earmark a stand for parking autorickshaws in consultation with the Regional Transport Authority, Thiruvananathapuram. It was made clear that the ingress and egress to the temple or the house of Smt.Remya shall not be obstructed. It was made clear that the ingress and egress to the temple or the house of Smt.Remya shall not be obstructed. Ext.P8 interim order dated 11.12.2017 was made absolute and it was made clear that if any decision has been taken, in consultation with the Regional Transport Authority, the Panchayat can enforce such decision in accordance with law. However, the Panchayat cannot take any decision without consultation with the Regional Transport Authority. 11. Pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P9 judgment, the Secretary of the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat issued Ext.P10 proceedings dated 08.08.2018, earmarking the autorickshaw stand as shown in the sketch attached to that proceedings. A reading of Ext.P10 proceedings would show that, the 8th respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer referred the matter to the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat, vide letter dated 03.04.2018. The Panchayat Committee constituted a three-member Sub Committee, vide Resolution No.4(1) dated 07.04.2018. The Sub Committee submitted a report dated 04.08.2018, to earmark the autorickshaw stand in accordance with the directions contained in Ext.P9 judgment. Thereafter, in consultation with the 6th respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer, the sketch attached to Ext.P10 proceedings was prepared, earmarking the autorickshaw stand, and the Panchayat Committee on 10.08.2018 decided to earmark the autorickshaw stand as per that sketch. In Ext.P10 proceedings it was made clear that the ingress and egress of the temple and to the residential house of Smt.Remya shall not be obstructed. Thereafter, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, by Ext.P11 proceedings dated 13.12.2018, stopped the functioning of the existing Kottamam autorickshaw stand. 12. The petitioner filed Cont. Case(C)No.873 of 2018 and Smt.Remya filed Cont. Case(C)No.559 of 2019, alleging violation of Ext.P9 judgment dated 18.12.2017. In Cont. Case(C)No.873 of 2018, the Grama Panchayat produced Ext.P12 sketch regarding the proposed autorickshaw stand. By Ext.P14 order dated 03.04.2019, this Court closed those Contempt Cases, observing that, if any person is aggrieved by the sketch prepared by the Panchayat earmarking the parking area, he is free to challenge the same in a separate writ petition. In Ext.P14 order, this Court has made it clear that, the Grama Panchayat shall ensure that no vehicle shall be parked in area other than one earmarked in Ext.P12 sketch produced in the Contempt Case, by causing obstruction to both petitioners. In Ext.P14 order, this Court has made it clear that, the Grama Panchayat shall ensure that no vehicle shall be parked in area other than one earmarked in Ext.P12 sketch produced in the Contempt Case, by causing obstruction to both petitioners. The Panchayat was directed to ensure that no parking is permitted in front of the house of Smt.Remya and the existing arrangement as per the said sketch will continue unless otherwise interfered with by this Court in any pending writ petition or in a challenge to be made by the petitioners. Accordingly, the earlier orders passed by this Court in the matter were modified. 13. In this writ petition, it is contended that while granting permission for an autorickshaw stand in front of the temple, vide Ext.P3 decision No.4(4) dated 16.01.2016, the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat has not complied with the provisions under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Landing Places, Halting Places, Cart Stands and other Vehicle Stands) Rules, 1994. The Panchayat has not published a notice as prescribed under Rule 3 of the said Rules, before providing an autorickshaw stand in front of the petitioner's temple, and the procedures under the relevant provisions of the said Rules were not complied with. It is also contended that, Ext.P3 decision of the Panchayat Committee is in violation of Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 344 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 14. The stand taken by the 6th respondent Sub Inspector of Police in the statement dated 19.06.2019 is that based on the directions of this Court and also the decision taken by the Panchayat Committee, the then Sub Inspector of Police had removed the autorickshaw stand 100 meters away from the disputed area. At the time of law and order patrolling, no autorickshaws are seen parked in the disputed area. The 6th respondent made enquiries on Ext.P20 series of photographs produced along with I.A.No.2 of 2019 and it was learnt that some autorickshaws are being parked in the disputed area and immediately on knowing about the arrival of police party, they move their autorickshaws to the earmarked place. 15. The 6th respondent made enquiries on Ext.P20 series of photographs produced along with I.A.No.2 of 2019 and it was learnt that some autorickshaws are being parked in the disputed area and immediately on knowing about the arrival of police party, they move their autorickshaws to the earmarked place. 15. The statement dated 16.09.2019 filed by the 9th respondent Project Director of National Highways Authority of India would show that the stretch of the National Highway in question has been entrusted to the National Highways Authority of India, by the State Government, and it comes within the purview of the said Authority, which can regulate and control plying of vehicles in the National Highway, invoking the provisions under Section 16 of the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988. As the manpower of the National Highways Authority of India is very limited, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways have entrusted the existing National Highway-66, at the stretch in question, to the State PWD (NH Wing) for maintenance. Therefore, respondents 1 and 3 to 8 are duty bound to ensure traffic regulation at the said stretch of the National Highway. 16. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 10 to 14, it is contended that, the present autorickshaw stand, which is situated near a bus stop at Kottamam Junction, is convenient for the public and no obstruction is caused due to parking of autorickshaws in that place. The Committee of the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat, by Ext.P3 decision, decided to grant permission for the autorickshaw stand, after being satisfied that the place in question is suitable for parking of autorickshaws. 17. Admittedly, the road in front of Kottiyarmangalam Sree Dharma Sastha Temple is a National Highway. As per sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 subject to the rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, it shall be the function of the National Highways Authority of India to develop, maintain and manage the National Highways and any other Highways vested in, or entrusted to, it by the Government. The Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, provides for control of land within the National Highways, right of way and traffic moving on National Highways and also for removal of unauthorised occupation thereon. The Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, provides for control of land within the National Highways, right of way and traffic moving on National Highways and also for removal of unauthorised occupation thereon. Clause (e) of Section 2 of the said Act define 'highways' to mean a National Highway declared as such under Section 2 of the National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956) and includes any Expressway or Express Highway vested in the Central Government, whether surfaced or unsurfaced, and also includes (i) all lands appurtenant to the highway, whether demarcated or not, acquired for the purpose of the highway or transferred for such purpose by the State Government to the Central Government; (ii) all bridges, culverts, tunnels, causeways, carriageways and other structures constructed on or across such highway; and (iii) all trees, railings, fences, posts, paths, signs, signals, kilometre stone and other highway accessories and materials on such highways. Chapter III of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, deals with prevention of unauthorised occupation of highway land and their removal. As per subsection (1) of Section 23, all lands forming parts of a highway which vest in the Central Government or which do not already vest in the Central Government but have been acquired for the purpose of highway shall, for the purposes of this Act, and other Central Acts, be deemed to be the property of the Central Government as owner thereof. 18. In exercise of the powers under Section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in supersession of the Rules of Road Regulations, 1989, the Central Government made the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017. Clause (b) of Regulation 1 defines the term 'carriageway' to mean the part or parts of a road normally used by vehicular traffic, whether separate from one another by a dividing strip or a difference of level or not. Clause (j) of Regulation 1 defines the term 'parking' to mean the bringing of a vehicle to a stationary position and causing it to wait for any purpose other than that of immediately taking up or setting down persons, goods or luggage and includes stopping for more than three minutes. Clause (o) of Regulation 1 defines the term 'road user', which includes a person driving or traveling on the road in a vehicle or otherwise and a pedestrian. Clause (o) of Regulation 1 defines the term 'road user', which includes a person driving or traveling on the road in a vehicle or otherwise and a pedestrian. Clause (r) of Regulation 1 defines the term 'stopping' to mean halting a vehicle for a very short duration out of free will, either to allow the passenger to board or alight or quick loading or unloading of goods. 19. Regulation 5 deals with duties of drivers and riders. As per clause (4) of Regulation 5, the driver and the riders shall take special care and precautions to ensure the safety of the most vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, elderly and the differently-abled persons. As per clause (5) of Regulation 5, the driver shall ensure that his vehicle, while moving or when stationary does not cause any hindrance or undue inconvenience to other road users or to occupants of any property. 20. Regulation 22 deals with stopping and parking. As per sub-clause (iv) of clause (1) of Regulation 22, a vehicle shall not be stopped on, or five meters before a pedestrian crossing. As per sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of Regulation 22, a vehicle shall not be parked on a main road or at a stretch of road where the notified maximum speed limit is 50 km per hour or more. As per sub-clause (c), a vehicle shall not be parked on footpath, cycle path and pedestrian crossing; as per sub-clause (d), before or after an intercession or a junction upto a distance of 50 meters from the edge of intercession or junction; as per sub-clause (e), where it would block access to designated parking places; as per sub-clause (i), in front of the entrance or exit of a property; and as per sub-clause (m), if it is likely to obstruct other vehicle or cause inconvenience to any person. 21. Regulation 39 deals with pedestrian crossing, footpath and cycle track. As per clause (1) of Regulation 39, while approaching an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing, the driver shall slow down, stop and give way to pedestrian, users of invalid carriages and wheelchairs. As per clause (2), if the traffic has come to a standstill, the driver shall not drive the vehicle on the pedestrian crossing, if he is unlikely to be able to move further and thereby block the pedestrian crossing. As per clause (2), if the traffic has come to a standstill, the driver shall not drive the vehicle on the pedestrian crossing, if he is unlikely to be able to move further and thereby block the pedestrian crossing. As per sub-clause (3), when a road is provided with a footpath or cycle track, no vehicle shall drive on such footpath or track, except on the directions of a Police Officer in uniform or where traffic signs permitting some movements have been displayed. 22. The Apex Court in W.P.(C)No.295 of 2012 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, by a public-spirited citizen, seeking enforcement of road safety norms and appropriate treatment of accident victims, constituted a 'Committee on Road Safety', vide its order dated 22.04.2014 S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India [ (2014) 6 SCC 36 ], and the said Committee was notified by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, on 30.05.2014. In the said decision, after referring to the relevant provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, which deals with licensing; vehicular fitness; etc. the Apex Court observed that, while improvements in different spheres of law are imminent with passage of time, any change of law has to be preceded by serious debate and consideration of a wide variety of factors all of which takes time. While such changes or amendments can be brought in only upon completion of the necessary exercise, the enforcement of the existing laws would stand on an entirely different footing. Strict and faithful enforcement of all existing laws and norms must be insisted upon not only as an absolute principle of law but also for the huge beneficial effects thereof. Though directions to the States to enforce the existing laws can be issued even in their absence, the Apex Court observed that the matter cannot be allowed to rest merely by issuance of directions. Observance and implementation of the directions to be issued by the Court in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India would require continuing scrutiny and therefore, the Apex Court decided to monitor such implementation and to make the States accountable for any inaction or lapse in this regard. Observance and implementation of the directions to be issued by the Court in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India would require continuing scrutiny and therefore, the Apex Court decided to monitor such implementation and to make the States accountable for any inaction or lapse in this regard. The Apex Court impleaded all the States as party respondents and directed the Government of each State to effectively implement and enforce all the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of which the States have the authority and obligation to so act under the Constitution, in addition to the tasks specifically alluded to in the subsequent paragraphs of that order dated 22.04.2014. By the said order, the Apex Court constituted a Committee having the composition, as enumerated in paragraphs 35, and the functions, as enumerated in paragraphs 36.4 to 36.8, to undertake the process of monitoring on behalf of the Court, the measures undertaken by the Central Government and the State Governments and the extent of affirmative action on part of the Union and the States, from time to time. 23. In W.P.(C).No.295 of 2012, the Apex Court delivered a judgment dated 30.11.2017 -S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India [(2018) 13 SCC 532]. In the said decision, the Apex Court observed that all States and Union Territories are expected to implement the Road Safety Policy with all due earnestness and seriousness. The responsibility and functions of the Road Safety Council constituted in terms of Section 215 of the Motor Vehicles Act will be as recommended by the Committee on Road Safety constituted as per the order dated 22.04.2014 and Road Safety Councils should periodically review the laws and take appropriate remedial steps whenever necessary. In paragraph 94.13 of the said decision, in the context of Lane Driving, the Apex Court held that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has already issued the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, vide G.S.R.634 (E) dated 23.06.2017, which should be implemented by the State Governments and Union Territories strictly. Paragraphs 94.1 to 94.25 of the said decision contains various directions issued by the Apex Court. In paragraph 95, the Apex Court has made it clear that, if there is any doubt or clarity is required in implementing those directions, the State Government or Union Territory concerned is at liberty to move the Committee on Road Safety. 24. Paragraphs 94.1 to 94.25 of the said decision contains various directions issued by the Apex Court. In paragraph 95, the Apex Court has made it clear that, if there is any doubt or clarity is required in implementing those directions, the State Government or Union Territory concerned is at liberty to move the Committee on Road Safety. 24. As already noticed, as per clause (5) of Regulation 5 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, the driver of a vehicle has to ensure that his vehicle, while moving or when stationary does not cause any hindrance or undue inconvenience to other road users or to occupants of any property. As per sub-clause (c) of clause (2) of Regulation 22, a vehicle shall not be parked on footpath, cycle path and pedestrian crossing; as per sub-clause (i), in front of the entrance or exit of a property; and as per sub-clause (m), if it is likely to obstruct other vehicle or cause inconvenience to any person. Therefore, parking of vehicles in front of the entrance or exit of a property of the temple in question is legally impermissible, in view of the provisions under sub-clause (i) of clause 2 of Regulation 22 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017. Moreover, in view of the provisions under sub-clause (b) of clause 2 of Regulation 22, a vehicle shall not be parked on a main road or at a stretch of road where the notified maximum speed limit is 50 km per hour or more. 25. The Indian Roads Congress has formulated Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities, vide IRC:103-2012. Indian Roads Congress was set up in December, 1934 on the recommendations of the Indian Road Development Committee (Jayakar Committee) set up by the Government of India, with the objective of Road Development in India. Indian Roads Congress works in collaboration with Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH). The Director General (Road Development) and Special Secretary, MoRTH, is the Honorary Treasurer of Indian Roads Congress. There are three Apex Committees, which are responsible for formulation and updation of Codes of Practices, Standards and Guidelines, i.e., Highways Specifications and Standards Committee; Bridges Specifications and Standards Committee; and General Specifications and Standards Committee. There are Technical Committees under each Apex Committees. The Director General (Road Development) and Special Secretary, MoRTH; the President and Secretary General of Indian Roads Congress are Ex-Officio members of all Technical Committees. There are Technical Committees under each Apex Committees. The Director General (Road Development) and Special Secretary, MoRTH; the President and Secretary General of Indian Roads Congress are Ex-Officio members of all Technical Committees. 26. In Chapter 1 of IRC:103-2012 'footpath' is defined as a portion of right of way of road used for the movement of pedestrian. Chapter 2 of IRC:103-2012 deals with introduction. As per Para 2.3, all pedestrian facilities ensure social equity. Developing a pedestrian environment means more than laying down a footpath or installing a signal. A truly viable pedestrian system takes into account both the big pictures and smallest details-from how a city is formed and built to what materials are under our feet. Chapter 3 of IRC:103-2012 deals with its scope. As per Para 3.2, the guidelines cover engineering design and planning aspects of pedestrian facilities on roadside and at road crossing in urban and semi-urban areas. As per Para 3.3, the guidelines are intended for use by the local authorities responsible for creating and maintaining semi-urban and urban road transport facilities. The guidelines are framed to serve the objectives of universal accessibility and social equity for sustainable transportation. As per Para 4.2, efforts should be made to create such conditions that pedestrians are not forced to walk in unsafe circumstances and that the motorists respect the position of pedestrians. As per Para 4.5, the mobility and safety of all pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility should be ensured to promote inclusive mobility and universal accessibility. As per Para 4.6, regular maintenance of all facilities and design elements should be undertaken to maintain accessibility, reliability, usability, safety and continuity. As per Para 4.7, while planning and designing pedestrian facilities, overall objectivity could be continuity and overall safety. 27. Chapter 5 of IRC:103-2012 deals with pedestrian level of service. As per Para 5.1, pedestrian spaces should be designed in consideration of human convenience and have to be qualitatively suitable to the needs of human beings. 9 parameters affect the quality of service of a footpath out of which 6 are pertaining to physical characteristics of footpath facility, like footpath width, footpath surface, obstruction, encroachment, potential of vehicular conflict and continuity. The 3 user factors are pedestrian volume, security, comfort and walking environment. 9 parameters affect the quality of service of a footpath out of which 6 are pertaining to physical characteristics of footpath facility, like footpath width, footpath surface, obstruction, encroachment, potential of vehicular conflict and continuity. The 3 user factors are pedestrian volume, security, comfort and walking environment. Para 5.2 of IRC:103-2012 deals with concept of pedestrian level of service; Para 5.3 deals with physical characteristics; and Para 5.4 deals with user characteristics. Para 6 of IRC:103-2012 deals with pedestrian facility design standards. 28. In view of the Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities formulated by the Indian Roads Congress, vide IRC:103-201, no parking of vehicles is legally permissible on the 'footpath', which is the portion of right of way of road used for the movement of pedestrians. Any such parking of vehicles on the footpath of public streets will force pedestrians to walk in unsafe circumstances, which will adversely affect the mobility and safety of all pedestrians including those with disabilities and reduced mobility. 29. In Noushad M. and others v. State of Kerala and others [ 2019 (2) KHC 562 ], a Division Bench of this Court held that permitting parking of autorickshaws permanently in front of shop rooms on the side of Highway is an appropriation of private right of owners of shops and houses to have free access to Highways. Obstructing such private right is not justified. In the said decision the Division Bench was dealing with an unauthorised autorickshaws stand, which has not been approved by the Grama Panchayat or anybody else. In the said decision, arising out of a writ petition filed seeking police protection, this Court directed the Grama Panchayat to constitute Traffic Regulatory Committee in accordance with Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and to determine the location of the parking place for autorickshaws in consultation with the District Police Chief and the Regional Transport Authority. Until a decision is taken by the competent authority, this Court permitted five autorickshaws at a time being parked in the existing parking place to assist the general public, subject to any other decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority, in consultation with the local authority. 30. Until a decision is taken by the competent authority, this Court permitted five autorickshaws at a time being parked in the existing parking place to assist the general public, subject to any other decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority, in consultation with the local authority. 30. A reading of the decision of the Division Bench in Noushad's case (supra) and also the decisions referred to therein would show that, the law laid down in those decisions in no way support the contention of the petitioner that no autorickshaw stand can be permitted to be established at any point the temple property touches the National Highway. As per clause (5) of Regulation 5 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, the driver of a vehicle has to ensure that his vehicle, while moving or when stationary does not cause any hindrance or undue inconvenience to other road users or to occupants of any property. In view of the provisions under sub-clause (i) of clause (2) of Regulation 22, no vehicle shall be parked in front of the entrance or exit of the property. In view of the provisions under sub-clause (c) of clause (2), no vehicle shall be parked on the footpath. In view of the provisions under sub-clause (b) of clause (2) of Regulation 22, no vehicle shall be parked on a main road or at a stretch of a road where the notified maximum speed limit is 50 km per hour or more. If the road margin in front of the temple is having sufficient width to park motor vehicles, without causing any obstruction to the passage of pedestrians, and without violating the provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 referred to hereinbefore, the petitioner cannot seek an order preventing parking of any vehicles in that road margin. 31. As already noticed, the three Apex Committees in the Indian Roads Congress, i.e., Highways Specifications and Standards Committee; Bridges Specifications and Standards Committee; and General Specifications and Standards Committee are responsible for formulation and updation of Codes of Practices, Standards and Guidelines. 31. As already noticed, the three Apex Committees in the Indian Roads Congress, i.e., Highways Specifications and Standards Committee; Bridges Specifications and Standards Committee; and General Specifications and Standards Committee are responsible for formulation and updation of Codes of Practices, Standards and Guidelines. The the Indian Roads Congress has formulated the Manual of Specifications and Standards for the construction of the National Highways and once the National Highways are constructed as per the standards and guidelines prescribed by the Indian Roads Congress, it has to be maintained as such without any encroachment on the right of way or on the pedestrian facilities provided as per such standards and guidelines. Therefore, before earmarking a place for autorickshaw stand on the side of a National Highway, without causing any obstruction to the passage of pedestrians, and without violating the relevant provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, the Local Authority has to consult the competent officer, who is in-charge of that National Highway, as authorised by the National Highways Authority of India. After such consultation, the Local Authority shall place the matter before the Traffic Regulatory Committee constituted in terms of Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and determine the location of the parking place for autorickshaws, in consultation with the concerned Regional Transport Authority and also the District Police Chief. In such circumstances, it is for the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat to take necessary steps in this regard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of reciept of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner, respondents 10 to 14 and other affected parties shall be given an opportunity of being heard by the Traffic Regulatory Committee before taking a decision as to the location of autorickshaw stand at Kottamam Junction. Until such a decision is taken by the competent authority, the 6th respondent Sub Inspector of Police, while ensuring that the parking of autorickshaws in front of Kottiyarmangalam Sree Dharma Sastha Temple is without causing any obstruction to free ingress and egress to that temple, shall also ensure strict compliance of the provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 referred to hereinbefore, in the matter of parking of autorickshaws at that place. 32. Respondents 10 to 14 are plying their autorickshaws on the strength of contract carriage permits issued by the concerned Regional Transport Authority. 32. Respondents 10 to 14 are plying their autorickshaws on the strength of contract carriage permits issued by the concerned Regional Transport Authority. The photographs of the autorickshaws owned by the 11th respondent and others, bearing registartion No.KL-01/BG-5253, etc., are placed on record as Ext.P20 series, along with I.A.No.2 of 2019 filed by the petitioner. The said photographs would show that the glass of the windscreen of the autorickshaws are pasted with tinted film strips (sun control film strips), stickers, etc. 33. Chapter V of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules deals with construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles. As per the mandate of sub-rule (1) of Rule 92, no person shall use or cause or allow to be used in any public place any motor vehicle which does not comply with the provisions of Chapter V of the said Rules. Rule 100 deals with safety glass. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 100, the glass of windscreens and the windows of every motor vehicle other than agricultural tractors shall be of safety glass. As per the proviso to sub-rule (1), in the case of three-wheelers and vehicles with hood and side covers the windows may be of acrylic or plastic transparent sheet. 34. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the glass of the windscreen and rear window of every motor vehicle shall be such and shall be maintained in such a condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 70%. The glasses used for side windows are such and shall be maintained in such condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 50%, and shall conform to Indian Standards IS: 2553 - Part 2 -1992. 35. Rule 102 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules deals with signalling devices, direction indicator and stop lights; Rule 103 deals with position of the indicator; Rule 104 deals with fitment of reflectors; Rule 105 deals with lamps; and Rule 106 deals with deflection of lights; Rules 110 deals with lamps on three-wheelers; and Rule 111 deals with prohibition of spot lights; etc. 36. As per Rule 110 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, every three-wheeler shall be fitted with one front head lamp and two side white or amber lights or two front lamps on the body. 36. As per Rule 110 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, every three-wheeler shall be fitted with one front head lamp and two side white or amber lights or two front lamps on the body. In addition to the front lamp or side lights, it shall be fitted with two rear lamps showing to the rear red light visible from a distance of 75 metres and a white light illuminating the registration mark exhibited on the rear of the vehicle so as to render it legible from a distance of 15 metres; and also two red reflex reflectors each having a reflecting area of not less than seven square centimetres. As per the first proviso to Rule 110, in case where these vehicles are attached with trailers, the rear fitments mentioned in this rule and direction indicator system mentioned in Rule 102 shall also be provided at the rear of the trailer. As per the second proviso, fitment of one head lamp shall be applicable only in case of three-wheelers with overall width not exceeding 1400 mm and in such cases the side lights shall be amber in colour. 37. Regulation 31 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 deals with vehicles lighting. As per sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 31, the driver shall use the specified lighting devices at nightfall and at dawn and at other times when visibility is poor. As per sub-regulation (2), the lighting devices of a vehicle shall at all times be kept in good working condition and no lighting device shall be obscured by any object or dirt. As per sub-regulation (3), no driver shall drive the vehicle with parking lights only, unless so directed by a police officer in uniform or any other authorised person; and use high beam inappropriately or for long duration or on well lit roads. As per sub-regulation (4), high beam shall be dipped in good time on the approach of an oncoming vehicle or when driving close behind another vehicle. As per sub-regulation (5), the driver shall switch on the fog light headlamps only when visibility is considerably affected due to fog, dust, storm, rain or snow and only with dipped head lamps. 38. In Avishek Goenka's case [ (2012) 5 SCC 321 ], the Apex Court held that the Central Motor Vehicles Rules deal with every minute detail of construction and maintenance of a vehicle. 38. In Avishek Goenka's case [ (2012) 5 SCC 321 ], the Apex Court held that the Central Motor Vehicles Rules deal with every minute detail of construction and maintenance of a vehicle. In other words, the standards, sizes and specifications which the manufacturer of a vehicle is required to adhere to while manufacturing the vehicle are exhaustively dealt with under the Rules. What is permitted has been specifically provided for and what has not been specifically stated would obviously be deemed to have been excluded from these Rules. It would neither be permissible nor possible for the court to read into these statutory provisions, what is not specifically provided for. The Apex Court held further that, these provisions demonstrate the extent of minuteness in the Rules and the efforts of the framers to ensure, not only the appropriate manner of construction and maintenance of vehicle, but also the safety of other users of the road. The legislative intent attaching due significance to the 'public safety' is evident from the object and reasons of the Motor Vehicles Act, the provisions of the said Act and more particularly, the Rules framed thereunder. Paragraphs 18 to 21 and 28 of the said decision read thus; "18. From the above provisions, it is clear that the Rules deal with every minute detail of construction and maintenance of a vehicle. In other words, the standards, sizes and specifications which the manufacturer of a vehicle is required to adhere to while manufacturing the vehicle are exhaustively dealt with under the Rules. What is permitted has been specifically provided for and what has not been specifically stated would obviously be deemed to have been excluded from these Rules. It would neither be permissible nor possible for the Court to read into these statutory provisions, what is not specifically provided for. These are the specifications which are in consonance with the prescribed IS No. 2553 -Part 2 of 1992 and nothing is ambiguous or uncertain. 19. Let us take a few examples. R.104 requires that every motor vehicle, other than three wheelers and motor cycles shall be fitted with two red reflectors, one each on both sides at their rear. Every motor cycle shall be fitted with at least one red reflector at the rear. 19. Let us take a few examples. R.104 requires that every motor vehicle, other than three wheelers and motor cycles shall be fitted with two red reflectors, one each on both sides at their rear. Every motor cycle shall be fitted with at least one red reflector at the rear. R.104A provides that two white reflectors in the front of the vehicle on each side and visible to oncoming vehicles from the front at night. 20. R.106 deals with deflections of lights and requires that no lamp showing a light to the front shall be used on any motor vehicle including construction equipment vehicle unless such lamp is so constructed, fitted and maintained that the beam of light emitted therefrom is permanently deflected downwards to such an extent that it is not capable of dazzling any person whose eye position is at a distance of 8 metres from the front of lamp etc. R.119 and R.120 specify the kind, size and manner in which the horn and silencer are to be fixed in a vehicle. 21. These provisions demonstrate the extent of minuteness in the Rules and the efforts of the framers to ensure, not only the appropriate manner of construction and maintenance of vehicle, but also the safety of other users of the road. xxxx xxxx xxxx 28. The legislative intent attaching due significance to the 'public safety' is evident from the object and reasons of the Act, the provisions of the Act and more particularly, the Rules framed thereunder. .........." (underline supplied) 39. In Saji's case [ 2019 (3) KHC 836 ] this Court held that, in view of the provisions under Rule 102 to 111 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, Rules 249 and Rule 360 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 and also the law laid down by the Apex Court in Avishek Goenka [ (2012) 5 SCC 321 ] and S. Rajaseekaran [(2018) 13 SCC 532], every motor vehicle shall be fitted with signalling devices, direction indicators, reflectors, reflective tapes, lamps, parking lights, etc. as per the mandate of the provisions under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and such signalling devices, direction indicators, reflectors, reflective tapes, lamps, parking lights, etc. have to be maintained as such. as per the mandate of the provisions under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and such signalling devices, direction indicators, reflectors, reflective tapes, lamps, parking lights, etc. have to be maintained as such. As per the mandate of Rule 124 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, every manufacturer shall get the prototype of the part, component or sub-assembly used in the manufacture of a vehicle, for which standards have been notified, approved from any agency referred to in Rule 126. Therefore, the signalling devices, direction indicators, reflectors, lamps, parking lights, etc. fitted on a motor vehicle by the manufacturer, after obtaining prototype approval for those parts under Rule 124 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, has to be maintained as such. 40. In Saji's case (supra), this Court directed the Transport Commissioner to take necessary steps to ensure strict compliance of the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 and Rules 102 to 111 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules in respect of every motor vehicle used in a public place. The Transport Commissioner is directed further to take necessary steps to implement the provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulation, 2017, strictly in view of the direction issued by the Apex Court in S. Rajaseekaran's case [(2018) 13 SCC 532]. Paragraphs 62, 63 and also the last paragraph of the said decision read thus; “62. The Transport Commissioner shall also take necessary steps to ensure that no motor vehicle, including a Government vehicle, is allowed to be used in any public place, after tampering with the percentage of visual transmission of light of the safety glass of the windscreen, rear window and side windows, either by pasting any material upon the safety glass or by fixing sliding 'cloth curtains', etc. and that, the safety glass of the windscreen and rear window of every motor vehicle is always maintained in such a condition that the visual transmission of light is not less than 70% and that of the safety glass used for side windows is not less than 50%, as per the mandate of sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 of the CMV Rules. 63. 63. The Transport Commissioner shall also take necessary steps to ensure strict compliance of the provisions under Rules 102 to 111 of the CMV Rules and no motor vehicle shall be allowed to be used in any public place without maintaining the signalling devices, direction indicators, reflectors, reflective tapes, lamps, parking lights, etc. as specified thereunder, in good working condition; since the use of any motor vehicle in a public place without complying with the mandatory requirements of the said rules is likely to endanger the safety of other road users. No motor vehicle shall be permitted to be used in public place putting any object in front of such lighting devices, reflectors, etc. or 'tinting' such lighting devises (i.e., headlights, tail lights, etc.) or reflectors by fixing vinyl tint film sticker. No motor vehicle shall be permitted to be used in any public place, which is fitted with any lights or lighting devices other than those specifically provided under the provisions of the CMV Rules. No motor vehicle shall be permitted to be used in a public place which is fitted with LED bar lights, LED flexible strip lights, after-market (Non-OEM) halogen driving lamps, etc. No transport vehicle, including the vehicles owned/operated by KSRTC and KURTC, shall be permitted to be used in any public place exhibiting advertisements, figures, writings, etc. which are likely to distract the attention of other drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Exhibition of no such advertisements, figures, writings, etc. shall be permitted on the body of the transport vehicle at places intended for exhibiting the name and address of the operator as per clause (g) of Section 84 of the MV Act; the particulars enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of Rule 93 of the KMV Rules; the reflectors and reflective tapes as per Rule 104 of the CMV Rules; and also on the safety glass of the windscreen, rear window and side windows of a transport vehicle which has to be maintained as per the standards prescribed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 of the CMV Rules. The Transport Commissioner shall take necessary steps to implement the provisions under the MV (Driving) Regulation, 2017 strictly, in view of the direction issued by the Apex Court in S.Rajaseekaran's case [(2018) 13 SCC 532].” 41. The Transport Commissioner shall take necessary steps to implement the provisions under the MV (Driving) Regulation, 2017 strictly, in view of the direction issued by the Apex Court in S.Rajaseekaran's case [(2018) 13 SCC 532].” 41. By the order dated 27.06.2019, 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 the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, failing which appropriate proceedings will have to be initiated against them for plying vehicles which do not comply with the provisions of Chapter V of the said Rules. 42. On 25.07.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions from the 8th respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer with reference to the aforesaid direction in the order dated 27.06.2019. 43. During the course of arguments, the learned Government Pleader, on written instructions from the 8th respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer, would submit that all Field Officers in the office of the said respondent have been instructed to ensure that no parking is made in front of the temple causing any obstruction to free ingress and egress of devotees and also to ensure that the provisions under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 is complied with promptly. The learned Government Pleader would also submit that a copy of the order dated 27.06.2019 has also been communicated to all field staff in the office of the 8th respondent for strict compliance. 44. The directions issued to the Transport Commissioner in paragraphs 62, 63 and also the last paragraph of the judgment of this Court in Saji's case [ 2019 (3) KHC 836 ] are applicable to every motor vehicle, including a three-wheeler. 44. The directions issued to the Transport Commissioner in paragraphs 62, 63 and also the last paragraph of the judgment of this Court in Saji's case [ 2019 (3) KHC 836 ] are applicable to every motor vehicle, including a three-wheeler. Therefore, it is for the 8th respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer and all officers in the Motor Vehicles Department to take necessary steps to ensure that respondents 10 to 14 and others, who are plying their autorickshaws on the strength of the contract carriage permits granted by the concerned Regional Transport Authority, are maintaining their vehicles in strict compliance of the aforesaid provisions under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, especially sub-rule (1) of Rule 92, sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 100 and Rule 110, and also the provisions under Regulation 31 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017, failing which appropriate proceedings will have to be initiated against them for plying vehicles, which do not comply with the provisions of Chapter V of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and also for violation of the relevant provision under the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat to undertake the exercise to determine the location of parking place for autorickshaws at Kottamam Junction, as directed in paragraph 31 of this judgment, and by directing the 8th respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer and all officers in the Motor Vehicles Department to ensure that respondents 10 to 14 and others are plying their autorickshaws, on the strength of contract carriage permits granted by the concerned Regional Transport Authority, after maintaining their vehicles in compliance with the provisions of Chapter V of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017.