IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 36198 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SHAJI MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, PALATHARA HOUSE, THURUTHY P.O, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, (PARTNER, PALATHARA CONSTRUCTIONS, CHANGANACHERRY). BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW SRI.JOHNSON K.KURIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN-691 305 2. THE C.I.OF POLICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN-691 305 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM.-691 001 4. PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY PUNALUR ,KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.PIN-691 305 5. T.C.JOSE, THEKKUMTHARA HOUSE, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK KOLLAM DISTRICT.PIN-691 305 6. ABDUL SALAM, LATHEEF MANZIL, CHEMMANTHOOR P.O, PUNALUR KOLLAM DISTRICT.691 302 7. A.K.NISHAD, NEW CRESCENT, CHEMMANTHOOR P.O, PUNALUR KOLLAM DISTRICT.691 302 8. SANTHOSH KUMAR, DEVI MANDIRAM, CHEMMANTHOOR P.O, PUNALUR KOLLAM DISTRICT.691 302 sts 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.36198/2010 9. E.JOHN, NISHA BHAVAN, CHEMMANTHOOR P.O, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.691 302 10. G.SOORY, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, CHEMMANTHOOR P.O, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.691 302 11. NAVAS, BEENA MANZIL, CHEMMANTHOOR P.O, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.691 302 12. ABRAHAM GEORGE, PAULSON FURNITURE, CHEMMANTHOOR P.O, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.691 302 13. KRISHNAKUMAR, VIJAYA VILASOM, CHEMMANTHOOR P.O, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.691 302 14. INDUS TOWERS LTD, CIRCLE OFFICE AT: VANKARATH TOWERS 8TH FLOOR, NH -47, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-24 REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD- LEGAL PREMAKRISHNAN NAIR. 15. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 16. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT, DEPARTMENT OF TELE COMMUNICATIONS, SANCHAR BHAVAN, 20, ASOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110 001. R1 TO R3,R15 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU R4 BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI R6 TO R10 BY ADV.SRI.C.S.DIAS SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 3/- -3- WP(C)NO.36198/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.258/10-11 DATED 20/09/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO FIRST PETITIONER. P2 COPY OF THE PURCHASE ORDER. P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/10/10 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 21/10/10 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.36198 of 2010-Y ***************************** Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 to 3 to afford protection to the petitioner for the work of construction, installation and working of a mobile tower in accordance with Ext.P1 permit issued by the 4th respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 5 to 13, members of the local public, are raising untenable objections and obstructions to the undertaking of the work in accordance with Ext.P1. 2. Respondents have been served. A counsel appears for respondents 6 and 10. The only objection raised by the 6th and 10th respondent is that Ext.P1 permit was issued without and before any structural stability certificate. The structural stability certificate has subsequently been produced. No other objections are raised. 3. Our attention has been drawn to the decision in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. C.I of Police [2010 (2) W.P(C) No.36198 of 2010-Y 2 KLT 762] and Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2011 (2) KHC 171]. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that the petitioner is entitled for police protection in accordance with the observations and conditions stipulated in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2011 (2) KHC 171]. 4. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; b) Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to afford protection to the petitioner for the construction, installation and working of mobile tower as permitted under Ext.P1. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/