IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5756 of 2011(T) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.D.JOSEPH, AGED 59 YEARS, EDITOR, `ZEEZAR NEWS', PANAGHADAN HOUSE, TIRUR, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN-680 531. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-679 335. 2. MULAKUNNATHUKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH MULAKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-680 581. 3. THE SECRETARY, MULAKUNNATHUKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MULAKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 581. 4. M/S.INDIA TELECOM INFRA LIMITED I NO.42/1327(J), 2ND FLOOR, V.S.ARCADE, POWER HOUSE ROAD, OPPOSITE POWER HOUSE, COCHIN, PIN-682 018. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.5756 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition has been filed mainly challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The fourth respondent had submitted an application on 22.3.2010 for building permit to construct a telecommunication tower in Sy.No.643/2p in Killannur village. It was rejected by the third respondent as per Ext.P5. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of rejection, the fourth respondent preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent Tribunal as appeal No.657/2010. Ext.P6 is the order passed in the appeal preferred against Ext.P5 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent should have taken into consideration the effect and impact of radiation of telecommunication tower before passing Ext.P6 order. It is further contended that in the said circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal as per Ext.P6 considering the mandate under Rule 141(8) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules (for short 'the Rules') is unsustainable. 3. Evidently, Ext.P5 order was passed on the application dated 22.3.2010 submitted by the fourth respondent for building permit. True W.P.(C) NO.5756/2011 2 that such an application was filed for construction of a telecommunication tower in Sy.No.643/2p of Killannur village. When an application for building permit is submitted before the Secretary of the concerned Municipality/Panchayath, the said authority is bound to pass orders thereon within the time stipulated under Rule 141 (8) of the Rules. If an an order is not passed on an application for building permit within the time limit, the applicant is entitled to get the benefits under the last proviso to Rule 143 of the Rules subject to the satisfaction of the conditions thereunder. Evidently, it is based on the said position and after considering the decision of this Court reported in Sasidharan v. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 16) that the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the fourth respondent is entitled to benefits of last proviso to Rule 143 of the Rules. As already noticed hereinbefore, the application that was rejected as per Ext.P5 was an application for building permit. The Tribunal as per Ext.P6 order found that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits under the last proviso to Rule 143 of the Rules. The petitioner did not have a case that the application submitted by the fourth respondent should not have been dealt with under the provisions of the Rules. In the said circumstances, decision of the Tribunal cannot be said to be faulty and warrants interference by this Court as it is a decision in consonance with W.P.(C) NO.5756/2011 3 the provisions under the Rules. In fact, the Tribunal was considering only the sustainability of Ext.P5. Therefore, I am of the view that Ext.P6 calls for no interference. However, it is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner's right, if any, to resort to the remedies available under law against the erection of the mobile tower in the premises in question based on pollution factor. Subject to the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.5756/2011 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.5756/2011 5