IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 6053 of 2011(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- O.T.THAMPY, AGED 54, S/O.LATE SHRI.Y.ONNONNY, THATTACKATTU VEEDU, THAZHATHUVADAKKU P.O., ENATHU (VIA)-691 526, KOLLAM DIST. BY ADV. SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPT. OF TELECOMMUNICATION, SANCHAR BHAVAN, 20, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. PATTAZHI VADAKKEKARA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM-689 695. 3. INDIA TELECOM INFRA LTD.NO.42/1327(1), 2ND FLOOR, V.S.ARCADE, TD TALUK, THRISSUR, POWER HOUSE ROAD, OPP.POWER HOUSE, KACHERIPADY, COCHIN-682 018, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON BOBY SEBASTIAN, CIRCLE HEAD. ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN FOR R3 SHRI.GEORGE ZACHARIA, CGC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jkk C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 6053 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is with respect to the non-consideration of Ext.P1 and P2 representations submitted by them before the second respondent Panchayat. Exts.P1 and P2 representations carry grievances against the proposed construction of a Mobile Tower. According to the petitioner, since the proposed site is very close to Government New L.P. School, Thazhathu Vadakku, the issue requires serious consideration. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that already based on their application building permit was granted and on the strength of the building permit issued by the second respondent, the 3rd respondent is entitled to go on with the construction. In view of the said position obtained in this case, this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder:- In case the 3rd respondent was issued with building permit by the second respondent, it will be open to the 3rd WPC.6053/2011 : 2 : respondent to go on with the construction of the Mobile Tower in the absence of any order/interdiction from any competent authority. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has submitted Exts.P1 and P2 in the light of Ext.P3, the second respondent is duty bound to consider the same expeditiously. In view of the fact that any further delay in the matter may ultimately affect the right as also the interest of the 2nd respondent and therefore, it will only appropriate to consider Exts.P1 and P2 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge