JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to take immediate steps to stop the unauthorized parking of autorickshaws in front of the petitioners’ shop rooms in the third respondent Panchayat. 2. The petitioners are running their establishments in the Panchayat covered by Exts. P2 and P4 ownership certificates. The respondents 6 and 7 are autorickshaw drivers and are the leaders of the autorickshaw drivers in the Panchayat. The respondents 6 and 7 and other drivers are not authorized to park autorickshaws in front of the petitioners’ shoprooms. However, the respondents 6 and 7 and the other drivers are indiscriminately parking their autorickshaws in front of the petitioners’ shoprooms and obstructing the free ingress and egress to their shoprooms. Even though the petitioners had submitted Exts. P6 and P7 series complaints before the respondents 1 to 3 and the office of the 5th respondent, no action has been taken in the matter. The action of the respondents 6 and 7 and the other drivers is illegal and high-handed. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The third respondent has filed a statement, inter alia, stating that the third respondent has not designated an autorickshaw parking stand as envisaged under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Landing Places, Halting Places, Cart Stands and Other Vehicle Stands) Rules, 1995. However, on 26.07.2024 and 29.08.2024, two meetings by the fourth respondent were convened, in which the second respondent and other stakeholders participated. Annexure R3(a) is the minutes of the meeting held on 26.07.2024. In the said meeting, the regulatory measures were discussed. Pursuant to the said meeting, Annexure R3(b) letter was sent to the second respondent to take necessary steps to implement the decision. The third respondent has also informed the respondent 6 and 7 and other unions to refrain from indiscriminately parking the autorickshaws. As of now, no autorickshaws are obstructing the entrance to the petitioners’ shoprooms. The decision in Annexure R3(a) has been implemented. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed. 4. The respondents 6 and 7 have filed a counter affidavit denying the allegation in the writ petition. They have contended that, they have not obstructed the ingress and egress to the petitioners’ shoprooms. The respondents 6 and 7 have valid permits to operate their autorickshaws in Kulathupuzha. The third respondent is also collecting the parking fees from the respondents 6 and 7. They have contended that, they have not obstructed the ingress and egress to the petitioners’ shoprooms. The respondents 6 and 7 have valid permits to operate their autorickshaws in Kulathupuzha. The third respondent is also collecting the parking fees from the respondents 6 and 7. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 and the learned counsel for the respondents 6 and 7. 6. The dispute in the writ petition pertains to the alleged indiscriminate parking of autorickshaws belonging to the respondents 6 and 7 and the other autorickshaw drivers in the Panchayat. 7. It is not disputed by all the parties that a decision has already been taken by the fourth respondent, the Traffic Regulatory Committee, vide Annexure R3(c) proceedings, which has attained finality. Therefore, all parties are bound by Annexure R3(c) proceedings passed under Section 72 of the Kerala Police Act . Hence, the second respondent is legally bound to ensure that Annexure R3(c) proceeding is complied by the parties in its letter and spirit. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed, by directing the second respondent to ensure that Annexure R3(c) proceedings is complied by all parties in its letter and spirit. If any party violates the decision in Annexure R3(c) proceedings, the second respondent shall take action against them, in accordance with law. 9. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.