IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17137 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAJI MATHEW, PARTNER, PALATHARA CONSTRUCTIONS, CHANGANACHERRY, RESIDING AT PALATHARA HOUSE, THURUTHY P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, KALLARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. SARASAPPAN, S/O.VAVA, SAREESH VIHAR, KALLARA SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. SAREESH, S/O.SARASAPPAN, SAREESH VIHAR, KALLARA SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. MOHANDAS, S/O.SANKUNNI, KUDILLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLARA SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 7. THANKAN ACHARI, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, MANAPALLY HOUSE, KALLARA SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. WP(C).No. 17137 of 2011 8. ANIYAPPAN, S/O.THANKAPPAN, PARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLARA SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 9. IAYAPPAN, S/O.VIJAYAN, MANTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KALLARA SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 10. VINODHAN, MOOLEKAROTHU, KALLARA SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 11. BIJU, S/O.THANKAPPAN, PARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLARA SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 12. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 13. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT, DEPARTMENT OF TELE COMMUNICATIONS, SANCHAR BHAVAN, 20, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. 14. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R15. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN FOR R14 SRI.SHAJI THOMAS FOR R 4 TO 11 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG SMT.CHARISHMA, GP * ADDL.R15 IS SUO-MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.17137/2011 DTD 15.07.2011 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: dmb WP(C).No. 17137 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD 30.10.2010 EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 27.5.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD 27.5.2011 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- EXT.R4(a):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD 18.5.2011 SUBMITTED TO THE PRESIDENT, KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT EXT.R4(b):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD NIL SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE dmb PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.17137 OF 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT PIUS C. KURIAKOSE ,J. This writ petition under Article 226 is field by the partner of a construction company, entrusted with the work of construction of a mobile tower for B.S.N.L. According to the petitioner, respondent Nos.4 to 11 are obstructing construction of the tower and its proposed energisation without any justifiable reason. The local authority, the third respondent has given all necessary permits for the proposed construction of the tower. The party respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit in which is stated that they have not raised any obstruction in the matter of construction of the tower. Their apprehension was that there will be serious health hazards to them and other members of the local public. They are only staging very peaceful 'Dharna' at a spot away from the site. Ext.R4(b) complaint was already submitted by them to the District Collector, Kottayam. W.P.(C).No. 17137 OF 2011 2 2. We heard the submissions of Sri.V.Philip Mathews, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Shaji Thomas, the learned counsel for the party respondents. We have also heard the Assistant Solicitor General of India. Having considering the rival submissions, we notice that one ground on which the party respondents are agitating against the proposed mobile tower is the ground of apprehension of health hazards. The issue is already decided in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of this court in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2011 (2) KLT 516]. Obviously, the petitioner has obtained permission of the local authority for construction. We do not find any reason that the petitioner should not be permitted to carry out the construction work. Under these circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition by issuing the following directions:- (i) Respondents 1 and 2 will grant adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner and his workers for construction and maintenance of the mobile tower in the property situated in Survey W.P.(C).No. 17137 OF 2011 3 No.529/6 of Kallara Village without any threat or obstruction from respondents 4 to 11. (ii) Before the tower is energised, the District Collector, Kottayam, before whom Ext.R4(b) complaint is submitted by the party respondents, will issue notice to the petitioner, the party respondents and anybody else concerned in the matter of the mobile tower, take a decision as to whether energisation should be permitted. Till permission is so granted by the District Collector, the tower to be constructed pursuant to the judgment will not be energised. The District Collector is suo-motu impleaded as the additional 15th respondent in the writ petition. Registry will carry out necessary corrections in the cause title. The learned Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the additional 15th respondent. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dmb