IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 16125 of 2009(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. ARAYIL ABDULLA HAJI, S/O.AHMEDKUTTY MUSALIYAR, ARAKAYIL, KOOLIMADU, PAZHOOR P.O., CHATHAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. ATHOOLI KUTTOOSA, S/O.KUNHOKKU, ATHOOLI HOUSE, P.O.PAZHOOR, KOOLIMADU, CHATHAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.T.V.NEEMA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUDEVAN.V.D., MANAGER, CIRCLE OFFICE, WIRLESS T.T.INFOSERVICE LTD., 5TH FLOOR, S.L.PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI - 682025. 2. RUKIYA.C.T., W/O.UNNIMON, MELAVEETTIL HOUSE, PULLAKODU AMSOM, PAZHOOR DESOM, P.O.MAVOOR, CHATHAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE – 673 661. 3. THE SECRETARY, CHATHAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, N.I.T.CAMPUS POST, KOZHIKODE - 673601. 4. STATE OF KREALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADVS. MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, MR.K.JOHN MATHAI, MR.P.BENNY THOMAS, MR.ANIL D. NAIR, MR.V.J.ANAND, R3 BY ADVS. MR.P.J.MATHEW, MR.K.B.ARUNKUMAR, R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. V. MANU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.16125/2009-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE EXACT LIE OF THE TOWER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE MASS COMPLAINT DTD. 08/05/2009 BEFORE THE R.3. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 11/05/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 16125 OF 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The limited plea of the petitioners in this case is that, the respondents 1 and 2 are proceeding with the installation of a Mobile Telecommunication Tower, disobeying Ext.P4 stop memo issued by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent states that it has ensured that the stop memo is complied with. Therefore, when the affidavit of the 3rd respondent is on record in that regard, if any grievance survives, the 3rd respondent has to hear the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 and conclude that issue finally, at the earliest. The plea of the petitioners that the Tower will result in health hazards and other issues stand answered by the judgment of this Court in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat [2006(4)KLT 695]. The Panchayat will consider whether the construction is in violation of the provisions of Chapter 19 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 and decide on the matter, within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps