IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 28551 of 2010(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SHAJI MATHEW, PARTNER, PALATHARA CONSTRUCTIONS, CHANGANACHERRY, RESIDING AT PALATHARA HOUSE, THURUTHY P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 508. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-PIN- 691 001. 3. PAVITHRESWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARIMPINPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 518, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, ASHWATHY, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN-691 001 5. UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O. VASUDEVAN PILLAI, KALLUPALACKAL HOUSE, KAITHAKODU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN-691 001 6. VASUDEVAN PILLAI, KALLUPALACKAL HOUSE, KAITHAKODU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN-691 001 7. SREEDHARAN PILLAI, S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, SIVA MANDIRAM, KAITHAKODU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.691 001 sts 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.28551/2010 8. CHANDRAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN, KAITHAKODU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN-691 001 9. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT, DEPARTMENT OF TELE COMMUNICATIONS, SANCHAR BHAVAN, 20, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. 11. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2, R9 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU R5 TO R8 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH SUBRAMANIAN SRI.E.A.THANKAPPAN SRI.S.SREEKUMAR(NORTH PARAVUR) SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS R10 BY ADV. SHRI.GEORGE MECHERIL, CGC R11 BY ADV. SHRI.MATHEWS K. PHILIP, SC FOR BSNL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 3/- -3- WP(C)NO.28551/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.2508/10 DATED 13/08/10 ISSUED BY PAVITHRESWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT. P2 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT P3 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 03/09/10 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF FIRST RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. P5 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/09/06 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO KUDAPPANAKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYAT. P6 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM 11TH RESPONDENT. P7 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 30/10/2010 EXEMPTION THE 11TH RESPONDENT FROM OBTAINING PERMIT UNDER RULE 130 OF THE KERALA MUNICIPALITY BUILDING RULES, 1999. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(A) COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 8/9/2010. R5(B) COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE SHEET AND DECISION OF THE GRAMASABHA DATED 28/9/2010. R5(C) COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT DATED 10/8/2009. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.28551 of 2010-T ***************************** Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection for the petitioner to undertake the work of construction, establishment and working of a mobile tower as permitted under Ext.P1 issued by the 3rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner is undertaking the work on behalf of the 11th respondent, illegal obstructions are raised by respondents 4 to 8, the local inhabitants. 2. Respondents 4 to 8 have entered appearance through a counsel. It is contended that respondents 4 to 8 have no intention to physically obstruct the construction of the tower. They are opposing the construction on the ground that construction, installation and working of the tower would cause health hazards to the members of the community. A further objection was raised that Ext.P1 permit is issued not in the name of the petitioner, but only in the name of the 11th respondent. It is now confirmed that the petitioner is undertaking the work on W.P(C) No.28551 of 2010-T 2 behalf of the 11th respondent and, in these circumstances, the said objection does not stand at all. 3. Our attention has been drawn to the decisions in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. C.I of Police [2010 (2) KLT 762] and Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2011 (2) KHC 171]. In the absence of any valid objection, we are satisfied that the petitioner is entitled for police protection subject to the observations and conditions in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2011 (2) KHC 171]. 4. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; b) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioner to undertake the work of construction, installation and working of a mobile tower on behalf of the 11th respondent as permitted under Ext.P1. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/