IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22299 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- INDIA TELECOM INFRA LTD.NO.42/1327 (I) 2ND FLOOR, V.S.ARCADE, POWER HOUSE ROAD OPP.POWER HOUSE,KACHERIPADI, COCHIN 682 018 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON BOBY SEBASTIAN, CIRCLE HEAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 001. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 001. 3. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 001 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695 001. ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU FOR R1-3 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.22299 of 2010 --------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JULY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is aggrieved by Exhibit P4 order issued by the 2nd respondent informing the petitioner that the construction of the tower has to be stopped in the light of the complaint raised by the nearby residents and for want of no objection certificate by the Pollution Control Board. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. Mainly it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Executive Engineer is not competent to issue a stop memo going by Rule 16 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. The learned counsel for the Corporation relies upon Section 50(1) and (2) of the Municipalities Act to contend that the power of the Secretary and his functions can be delegated. 3. A mobile tower is being constructed by the petitioner after obtaining Exhibit P2 permit. The petitioner has also obtained an interim order, Exhibit P3 in W.P.(C)No.14108/10, wherein police protection has been granted to proceed with the W.P.(C)No.22299/10 -2- construction, if he possesses valid permit for construction. 4. It is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that complaint relates to non-compliance of conditions of the permit and the alleged violations of the same and the nuisance caused to the nearby residents. It is pointed out that instances have been reported that the construction has resulted in damage to the nearby buildings due to escavation using JCB. 5. In the light of the fact that the communication Exhibit P4 is only a stop memo, a hearing of the matter by the Secretary of the Corporation, that too expeditiously, will serve the purpose. 6. In that view of the matter, the 1st respondent is directed to conduct a hearing of the stop memo issued as per Exhibit P4 with notice to the petitioner and any other parties. The petitioner will be issued a notice showing the specific violations, if any, forth with and the petitioner can also raise all objections before the 1st respondent on receipt of the said notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a no objection certificate from the Pollution Control Board can be produced by him only after the construction is over and not now. W.P.(C)No.22299/10 -3- These aspects will be considered by the Secretary if raised by the petitioner at the time of hearing the matter. Appropriate decision will be taken within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the same will be communicated to the parties. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn