IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 7973 of 2008(Y) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: PAYYADA BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT PAYYADA, (P.O) THODANNUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. PIN - 673 108. BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V SRI.BIJU J.THADIKKAL RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REP. BY IT'S MEMBER SECRETARY. 3. THIRUVALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY IT'S SECRETARY, (P.O) THIRUVALLUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. BHARATHI AIRTEL LTD., S.L.AVENUE, N.H.BYE PASS, KUNDANNUR, COCHIN REP BY IT'S MANAGER. 5. R.D.O., KOZHIKODE CIVIL STATION, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW FOR R4 SRI.SATHISH NINAN FOR R4 SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN FOR R2 SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R3 SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R3 GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. K.R. DEEPA SRI. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC FOR PCB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 7973 OF 2008 Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd May, 2008. J U D G M E N T The grievance highlighted in the writ petition is basically against the installation of a tower by the 4th respondent company which is engaged in providing mobile cellular services. One of the grounds urged is that the aforesaid 4th respondent has not obtained building permit from the Panchayat. That stands contradicted in view of Ext. R4(1) produced by the company. 2. It is then contended that the company has not obtained consent from the Pollution Control Board. True, for the diesel generator set which will be installed in the premises, the company has to have a consent from the Pollution Control Board. But it need be insisted only before the energisation of the same. Therefore, it will be open to the concerned respondent to insist on the 4th respondent obtaining such a consent from the Pollution Control Board at the appropriate time. W.P.(C) No. 7973 OF 2008 -2- 3. Regarding the health hazards pointed out, the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Reliance Infocomm v. Chemancherry Grama Panchayat {2006 (4) KLT 695} is the complete answer. In view of this, I do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. However, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. R4(1) building permit this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner in pursuing the same. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-