IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10207 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR LTD. FORMERLY KNOWN AS HUTCHISON ESSAR CELLULAR LTD ASHISH BUILDING, COCHIN-31, REP. BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL, RAJESH, MELETH VEETTHIL, AGED 36 YEARS S/O RAGHAVAN MELEHVEETTIL BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KOTHAMANGALAM MUNCIPAL OFFICE REP. BY ITS SECRETARY KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM 2. SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. M.J.SIMON, S/O SRI.JOHN, MANJALAYIL HOUSE KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM 4. P.P.MEERAN HAJI, S/O PAREED, PALIKKAL HOUSE KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.10207 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Under challenge in this writ petition are Ext.P3 provisional order and Ext.P3(a) show cause notice issued by the first respondent to the 4th respondent who is the owner of the building upon which the petitioner company has installed a mobile telephone tower. It is alleged in Ext.P3 and P3(a) that certain new constructions are being carried out upon the adjacent road in front of the building upon which the petitioner company has installed the tower. The case of the petitioner company is that the company was able to construct the tower only on the strength of Ext.P2 interim order issued by a Division Bench of this court in the wake of unnecessary obstructions by the third respondent. The tower has been completely constructed and except for some auxiliary works like laying earthing cables for the mobile tower equipments and for protection from lightning, the entire work is over. The so called digging on the adjacent road became necessary only to WPC.No.10207/08 2 complete the auxiliary works. 2. Prima facie, I notice genuineness in the grievance of the petitioner. But Ext.P3 and P3(a) are only provisional order and show cause notice. Though Ext.P3 and P3(a) are addressed only to the 4th respondent, the petitioner's landlord, it is always open to the petitioner to appear before the Secretary of the Municipality and file objections to Ext.P3 and P3(a) as if Exts.P3 and P3(a) are addressed to the petitioner also. It is directed accordingly. At the same time, the submission of Sri.P.Sathisan, counsel for the petitioner, that unless the auxiliary works like laying of earthing cables and arranging for protection from lightning is permitted to be done immediately, the risk involved will be great has some appeal. 3. Under these circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition itself issuing the following directions: The first respondent is directed to receive objections if any filed by the petitioner to Ext.P3 and P3(a) within 7 days from today and finalise the issue covered by Ext.P3 and P3(a) after hearing the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 within one month thereafter. In the WPC.No.10207/08 3 meanwhile, there will be a direction to the first respondent to permit the petitioner to complete all the works in connection with the laying of earthing cables for the mobile tower equipments and also providing for protection from lightning to the tower and its equipments under the supervision of the first respondent or other officials of the Municipality as authorised by the first respondent. The first respondent should permit the petitioner to do the above works at the earliest and at any rate within ten days of receiving a copy of this judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.10207/08 4