IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24423 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.P. JOSE, AGED 57, S/O. PAILY, PARMBIL HOUSE, VADAKKUMKARA VILLAGE, VELLANGALLORE.P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. VELLANGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH (SPECIAL GRADE), REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KONATHUKUNNU, PIN - 680 123. 2. VELLANGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, KONATHUKUNNU, PIN-680 123. 3. NAKKARA KUMARAN, S/O. LATE AYYAPPANKUTTY, WARD NO. II, VELLANGALUR.P.O, THRISSUR 4. RELIANCE TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., A&P ARCADE, SAHODRAN AYYAPPAN ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI, REP. BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, THE CIRLCE LEGAL MANAGER, SRI. SAJITH.V.K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24423/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The first respondent Panchayat granted Ext.P4 permit to the 4th respondent for installation of a mobile cellular tower. Petitioner contends that, based on Ext.P1 objection filed by him and the other residents of the locality, the Panchayat canceled Ext.P4 permit. The 4th respondent there upon filed an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government institution. By Ext.P2 order, the Tribunal set aside the decision of the Panchayat canceling the licence and allowed the appeal. In implementation of Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal, the Panchayat issued Ext.P5, a revised permit to the 4th respondent, on the strength of which the 4threspondent is proceeding to install the tower. It is at this stage, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, contending WP(c).No.24423/2008 2 that the Tribunal passed Ext.P2 order without the complainants on the party array and that Ext.P5 revised permit issued by the Panchayat is illegal. 2. As far as the plea of the petitioner that the residents who had allegedly filed Ext.P1 were not made parties to the appeal which resulted in Ext.P2 is concerned, though this assertion of the petitioner is factually correct, there is nothing on record to indicate that the 4th respondent was aware that it was at the instance of the petitioner and others that the licence was canceled. The petitioner has not produced any material to that effect in this writ petition nor does Ext.P2 even disclose this aspect. If that be so, I cannot find fault with the 4th respondent for not impleading the petitioner or others in Ext.P2 proceedings. Consequently, Ext.P5, the revised permit issued by the Panchayat also cannot be invalidated for that reason. 3. As far as the objection of the petitioner against the installation of the tower is concerned, it is purely on the WP(c).No.24423/2008 3 apprehension entertained by the petitioner regarding the possibility of the illeffects on the health of the persons in the locality. Not only that this plea is totally without any materials but also that aspect of the matter was considered by this court in the decision reported in Reliance Infocom V. Chemanchery Panchayat(2006(4) KLT 695). Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.24423/2008 4