IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30802 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, VANKARATH TOWER, 8TH FLOOR, N.H.BYEPASS, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI -24, REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, PREMAKRISHNN NAIR.N.M. HEAD LEGAL. BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. ANANDHAKRISHNAN, ERAVATHUKUNNU, KOMMERI.P.O, KOZHIKODE -7. 4. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SHYSON.P.MANGUZHA (R1 & R2) BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 BY ADV.SMT.SARITA DAVID CHUNKKATH FOR R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.30802 OF 2011 PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDER CATEGORY -I (IP-1) EXHIBIT-P1-(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA WITH RESPECT TO THE NAME CHANGE. EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 19/10/2009 EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09/11/2011 EXHIBIT-P3(A)-TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO THE COMPLAINT DATED 14/11/2011 EXHIBIT-P4- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT NOTIFICATION CONFERRING THE STATUS OF TELEGRAPH AUTHORITY ON THE PETITIONERS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL,JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C).NO.30802 OF 2011 ................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The petitioner company, who are providers of infrastructure to mobile telephone service providers, has filed this writ petition seeking police protection for the movement of fuel to the site for the installation of equipments and for operating their already existing telecommunication tower in Ward No.26 in R.Sy.No.67/11 within the area of Kozhikode Corporation. According to the petitioner company, the tower in question was constructed by them in 2009 and became functional in 2009 itself. It is only now that a group of persons under the leadership of the third respondent have started obstruction. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that protection is required only for the movement of fuel to the site of the existing tower and for installation of additional equipments and for operation of the tower uninterruptedly. 2. The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit. The substance of the contention raised is that local public are protesting against the health hazards that W.P.(C).NO.30802 OF 2011 : 2 : will result from the continued operation of the tower. It is only a peaceful agitation that is being conducted by the local residents. This Court may not restrain the peaceful agitation under the guise of police protection direction. 3. On behalf of the State Attorney, Sri. Shyson P. Manguzha submitted that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is not the 3rd respondent alone who is protesting but it is a large number of people cutting across political lines who are protesting. After considering the rival submissions addressed at the bar, we find that the issue of health hazard is already decided against the 3rd respondent and in favour of the petitioner by judgment of this Court in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. State of Kerala (201192) KHC 171). The 3rd respondent and persons owing allegiance to her are not justified in placing obstruction in the matter of continued operation of the tower. According to us, if the 3rd respondent and people under her are creating obstructions, the 2ndrespondent is duty bound to remove such obstructions. Hence we allow this writ petition and direct the 2nd W.P.(C).NO.30802 OF 2011 : 3 : respondent to remove physical obstruction, if any placed by the 3rd respondent and persons acting under her and owing allegiance to her in the matter of movement of fuel to the site, installation of equipments and for operating existing telecommunication tower in Ward No.26 in R.Sy.No.67/11 of Kozhikode Corporation. We however make it clear that this judgment does not prohibit the peaceful agitation conducted by the 3rd respondent and for that matter anybody among the local public. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. K. HARILAL,JUDGE. cl