Statement: Members of two local clubs occasionally fight on the main road, blocking traffic.\nCourses of Action:\nI. Deploy police presence on the main road (at least during vulnerable hours/events) to deter clashes.\nII. Identify those involved and prosecute as per law to create deterrence.\nIII. Disband the management of both clubs with immediate effect.

Introduction / Context:
Public-way violence disrupts safety and mobility. Immediate deterrence and legal accountability are appropriate; dissolving private associations wholesale is extreme absent statutory grounds.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Fights occur intermittently on a specific road.
• Traffic gets blocked.

Concept / Approach:
Targeted police deployment (I)—especially during known flashpoints—prevents escalation. Prosecution (II) per evidence sets deterrent precedent. Disbanding club management (III) lacks proportionality and due process; regulators can warn/suspend activities if warranted, but blanket disbandment is not an immediate course of action from the facts stated.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Increase patrols/CCTV; define no-assembly zones (I).2) Identify culprits; file cases; engage club leadership for undertakings (II).3) Escalate sanctions only if chronic non-compliance persists with legal basis.

Verification / Alternative check:
Problem-place policing and targeted legal action typically reduce recurrence.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
III overreaches; “All” inherits it; pairs including III are unjustified.

Common Pitfalls:
Round-the-clock static deployment when time-bounded patrols suffice.

Final Answer:
Only I and II follow.