IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12581 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. T.G.ABRAHAM, THOLANICKUNNEL HOUSE, POTHANICADU, ERNAKULAM DT. 2. M.C.JACOB, MANKUTHAL HOUSE, POTHANICADU, ERNAKULAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SRI.PAUL C THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE POTHANICADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POTHANICADU P.O, POTHANICADU. 3. MATHEW PAPPACHAN, EMBRAYIL HOUSE, POTHANICADU. 4. M/S INDUS TOWERS LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 WITH ITS CIRCLE OFFICE AT VANKARATH TOWERS, 8TH FLOOR, N.H.BYEPASS, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI 682 024 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE BIJU .T.NAIR. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 12581 OF 2010 (W) ===================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is a building permit issued by the respondent Panchayat to the 4th respondent for the erection of a mobile cellular tower. After the building permit was issued, WP(C) No.25317/09 was filed before this Court, to which the first petitioner is also a party. That writ petition was dismissed by this Court. 2. However, subsequently for the reason that the survey number of the property mentioned in Ext.P1 was that of the first petitioner, the building permit was suspended by the 2nd respondent by Ext.P3 order. In the meantime, the 4th respondent took on lease the property belonging to the 3rd respondent for the construction of the tower. 3. At that stage, for the reason that there is a dispute between the first petitioner and the 3rd respondent, first petitioner filed OS No.416/09 before the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha and obtained an order of injunction restraining erection of the tower. It would appear that the parties entered appearance and based WPC No. 12581/10 :2 : on the undertakings given, the Munsiff's Court vacated the interim order. Aggrieved by that order, appeal was filed and that appeal is pending consideration of the Appellate Court. 4. In the meantime, the survey number and the building number got corrected, and on that basis, by Ext.P4, the 2nd respondent restored the building permit. Realising that, that will resume, obviously at the instance of the petitioners, complaints described as mass complaints were filed against the erection of the tower and relying on Ext.P6 Government Order requiring that if complaints are raised that should be resolved, this writ petition is filed alleging that the Panchayat has not taken any action on the complaints received in the light of Ext.P6 Government Order. 5. As already seen, at every stage of the proceedings, right from the issuance of Ext.P1, petitioners were attempting to prevent erection of the tower. They approached this Court, Munsiff's Court, District Court and they are now before the Panchayat. 6. In my view, the facts show that it is a calculated and malafide attempt of the petitioners to deprive the 4th respondent WPC No. 12581/10 :3 : the fruits of Ext.P1 building permit, which has been restored by Ext.P4. In the facts of this case, I am not persuaded to issue any order even for directing consideration of the representations in the light of Ext.P6. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp