JUDGMENT : The petitioners in these writ petitions are challenging the action of the Grama Panchayat in prohibiting transport of heavy vehicles through the Maduraparampu-Chempilavu road, in purported exercise of the power conferred under Section 170 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Since the issues raised are similar, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7138 of 2021 has been conducting a metal crusher unit from 2003. It is submitted that after the general elections to the Kerala Legislative Assembly was held in 2020, objections were placed before the Panchayat committee regarding heavy vehicular traffic in the road mentioned above. On 10.3.2021, the Panchayat issued Ext.P5 notice to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7138 of 2021 pointing out that a notice board prohibiting heavy vehicular traffic in the Road has been placed in the road, and, directing him to stop plying such vehicles in the Road and to report compliance of the same to the Panchayat, failing which action will be taken against him. Ext.P10 is the resolution dated 15.2.2021 passed by the Panchayat based on which Ext.P5 is issued. 3. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.10541 of 2021 has been conducting a concrete bricks manufacturing unit from 2009. He is also aggrieved by the above said decision of the Panchayat. Ext.P5 produced in the writ petition is the resolution dated 15.2.2021 of the Panchayat. 4. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondents. For convenience, reference to exhibits is as they are marked in W.P.(C)No.7138 of 2021. 5. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that Section 170 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act does not authorise the Panchayats to regulate the traffic on the road and the said power is available under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as MV Act). It is hence submitted that Ext.P10 resolution is without any authority in law. Section 170 of the Act reads as follows: “S.170. Panchayats to maintain the roads properly. - (1) It shall be the duty of the Panchayat to maintain properly, the roads vested in it and to prevent encroachment on it. It is hence submitted that Ext.P10 resolution is without any authority in law. Section 170 of the Act reads as follows: “S.170. Panchayats to maintain the roads properly. - (1) It shall be the duty of the Panchayat to maintain properly, the roads vested in it and to prevent encroachment on it. (2) The Village Panchayat shall keep all public roads and important public paths in its area free from garbage, sewage and other waste materials and shall protect such roads and public paths from encroachment. (3) The Village Panchayat may in such manner as it may deem fit, dispose of all garbage, sewage and other waste materials collected by it while cleaning public roads, public paths and drains”. 6. A reading of the section will show that it contemplates maintenance of the roads vested in the panchayat and keeping it free from garbage, sewerage and other waste materials and to protect the roads and public paths from encroachment. Chapter VIII of the MV Act deals specifically with control of traffic. Section 115 provides for prohibition of plying of certain type of vehicles. Section 115 of the MV Act is extracted below for reference: “S.115. Power to restrict the use of vehicles-The State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience, or because of the nature of any road or bridge, may by notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit or restrict, subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified in the notification, the driving of motor vehicles or of any specified class or description of motor vehicles or the use of trailers either generally in a specified area or on a specified road and when any such prohibition or restriction is imposed, shall cause appropriate traffic signs to be placed or erected under section 116 at suitable places : Provided that where any prohibition or restriction under this section is to remain in force for not more than one month, notification thereof in the Official Gazette shall not be necessary, but such local publicity as the circumstances may permit, shall be given of such prohibition or restriction.” 7. There is no room for any doubt that Section 115 of the MV Act is a provision specifically for the purpose of the control of traffic. There is no room for any doubt that Section 115 of the MV Act is a provision specifically for the purpose of the control of traffic. The counsel for the petitioners also point out that as a matter of fact when the State Government had issued a notification in terms of Section 115 of the MV Act on 29.9.2015 (produced as Ext.P7) prohibiting the operation of goods vehicles having loading capacity of more than 10 tonnes from roads having width less than 6 metres, the same had been challenged before this Court in W.P. (C)No.34462 of 2016 and connected cases and this Court had by order Ext.P8 stayed the operation of the notification. 8. A statement has been filed on behalf of the Panchayat. It is contended that the petitioners have a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 276 of the Act and hence the writ petition is not maintainable. It is further stated that the Panchayat has acted in exercise of the powers available under Section 166(2) of the Act read with Entry 14 in the Third Schedule under the heading "A.Mandatory functions", apart from Section 170. It is also submitted that the panchayat has acted on the basis of complaints received from the residents of the locality. The petitioners have filed a reply stating that Ext.P10 resolution of the Panchayat shows the source of power as Section 170. The petitioner has produced documents to show that their business has come to a standstill because of the imposition of the restriction of traffic. It is further stated that the petitioners' units were started several years prior to the imposition of the restriction and there had been no objection earlier. 9. Entry 14 under Mandatory functions stated in the Third Schedule reads as "protection of roads and other public properties". Reference is also made to Sector wise functions under "C" XI (1) of Third Schedule which reads as "construction and maintenance of village roads within a village panchayat". A reading of Section 166 which is the general provision relating to the duties of the Panchayat and Section 170 which is the specific provision regarding the maintenance of roads, it can be seen that none of the provisions invest the Panchayat with the power to regulate traffic in the roads. A reading of Section 166 which is the general provision relating to the duties of the Panchayat and Section 170 which is the specific provision regarding the maintenance of roads, it can be seen that none of the provisions invest the Panchayat with the power to regulate traffic in the roads. The counsel for the petitioners points out that the manner in which the decision was taken by the Panchayat is also very curious. Ext.P6 produced in W.P.(C)No.10541 of 2021 is the copy of the Agenda to the meeting held on 15.2.2021, wherein Ext.P10 decision was taken. Item 8 of the Agenda says about discussing the Government orders, posts and letters and to take a decision on the same. It is thus seen that even the Agenda to the meeting did not contain any reference to prohibition of heavy vehicular traffic in the roads. The Panchayat Meeting Rules clearly states that only matters which are included in the agenda can be discussed. The complaint stated to have been received is not even a document put for discussion in the agenda. The resolution Ext.P10 also does not state about such a complaint. Nobody was put on notice regarding such a decision. Even if there was notice, such a decision could not have been taken in the light of Section 115 of the MV Act. Regarding the availability of alternate remedy, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that if it is shown that the decision of the Panchayat is ultra vires, a writ petition under Article 226 can be maintained, even if there is an alternate remedy. [See M/s Onset Developers, Palakkad v. Secretary, Akathethara Grama Panchayat and another 2015 (1) KLT 668 )]. 10. The counsel for the Panchayat submitted that apart from the order being appealable, the original complainants have not been impleaded. It is contended that the local self Government institutions were created under the Constitution with powers of self governance and the Act has been passed in terms of the Constitutional provisions. It is contended that as per Section 166, the exclusive power is available to the Panchayat with regard to the Panchayat roads and the entry is to be given the widest amplitude, so as to include power to restrict traffic. It is contended that as per Section 166, the exclusive power is available to the Panchayat with regard to the Panchayat roads and the entry is to be given the widest amplitude, so as to include power to restrict traffic. It is contended that the entry protection of road takes within its purview such measures as would be required to ensure the road is well maintained, for which purpose, if it is required the traffic can also be restricted. It is submitted that the remedy of the petitioners is to approach the appellate authority or to approach the Government for cancellation of the resolution by invoking the power under Section 191 of the Act. Finally, it is submitted that if the petitioners are serious about their submission that they are willing to contribute for the maintenance of the road, the Panchayat is willing to consider the said request and reconsider the decision. 11. Reliance is placed by the counsel for the Panchayat on the decision of this court in Sadasivan and others v. State of Kerala and others reported in [ 2016(3) KLT 69 ] to submit that the Panchayat has power to control the traffic. The above said decision related to regulation of parking of vehicles on the side of the National Highway passing through the Panchayat. The above decision will not in my opinion apply to the question of prohibiting heavy vehicular traffic in a road. 12. Having considered the contentions on both sides and the documents produced and the judgments relied on, I am of the opinion that the power to prohibit vehicular traffic is specifically granted to the Government or person authorised by the Government, as per Section 115 of the MV Act. There is no power available to the Panchayat either under Section 166 or under Section 170 of the Act which overrides the power of the Government under Section 115, and empowers the Panchayat to control the traffic. The specific power available under Section 170 is to maintain the roads and keep it free from garbage, sewerage and other waste materials. Section 166 on the other hand is general is nature and only identifies the areas where power can be exercised. There again, there is no power available to control traffic. The specific power available under Section 170 is to maintain the roads and keep it free from garbage, sewerage and other waste materials. Section 166 on the other hand is general is nature and only identifies the areas where power can be exercised. There again, there is no power available to control traffic. When there is a specific provision available authorising the control of traffic by the State Government or such persons authorised by the Government to prohibit traffic, and the manner of exercise of such power is also laid down, the Panchayat cannot assume such a power relying on the power available to maintain roads. I find that the contention of the petitioners is fully justified. In the above circumstances, I hold that Ext.P10 resolution is bad in law for want of authority and is hence ultra vires the Act. As such, there is no necessity to relegate the petitioners to the alternate remedy of appeal or approaching the Government against the resolution. 13. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. Ext.P10 resolution in W.P.(C)No.7138 of 2021 (which is Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No. 10541 of 2021) is quashed and the consequential notice Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No. 7138 of 2021 is also quashed. This court is however not expressing any opinion on the offer made by the petitioners to contribute to the maintenance of the road, which is an aspect on which the petitioners and the Panchayat may arrive at an amicable understanding.