IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3972 of 2008(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.ESSAR TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE (P)LTD, 41/256, C-19, SECOND FLOOR, MATHER SQUARE, OPP.NORTH RAILWAY STATION, COCHIN 682018 REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE (SITE ACQUISITIONS & ADMINISTRATION), MR.RAHUL DAS. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 5. SRI.SAMEER, S/O.ABDULLA KUNJU, PANAKKAL PURAYIDAM, LAJANATH WARD, ALAPPUZHA-2. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR ADV.SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS, SC, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.3972 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT It appears to me that the petitioner, a mobile telephone company, has a genuine grievance. The company was issued with Ext.P1 building permit for the construction of a mobile tower. Thereafter, the Municipal Engineer issued Ext.P2 to it alleging that the construction of the tower is in violation of Rule 130. To Ext.P2 petitioner company submitted Ext.P3 wherein the allegation that it is without obtaining permit under Rule 130 that the construction is taken up has been denied. Grievance of the petitioner is that though Ext.P3 was submitted, no decision has been taken after considering Ext.P3. 2. It is noticed that though Ext.P2 has been issued by the Municipal Engineer, it is the secretary of the Municipality who is competent to take a final decision in the matter as to whether the petitioner should not be allowed to carry out the construction on the strength of Ext.P1 permit which is already issued. It is submitted on behalf of the learned standing counsel for the WPC.No.3972/08 2 Municipality that it is in the wake of some complaint submitted by the 5th respondent that the Municipal Engineer issued Ext.P2 notice. Under these circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition directing the Secretary of the first respondent Municipality to take up Ext.P3 immediately, hear the petitioner and also the 5th respondent and take an early decision. While taking decision, due regard will be given by the Secretary to Ext.P1 permit which is seen validly issued in favour of the petitioner company. The Secretary shall also have due regard to the judgment of the Division Bench in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat ( 2006(4)KLT 695). The Secretary will ensure compliance of the above direction at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. If the decision of the Secretary comes to be in favour of the petitioner company, respondents 3 and 4 will ensure that petitioner gets the benefit of the order and is able to carry out the construction without any hindrance or objection from respondent No.5 or anybody else. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.3972/08 2