IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19307 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S. ESSAR TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD., 36/2624, FIRST FLOOR, CHERAMANGALATH HOUSE, SHENOY ROAD, COCHIN-17, REP. BY THE ASSSISTANT MANAGER (LEGAL AND SITE ACQUISITION), MR. BABU PATTATHANAM. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUVILWAMALA.P.O, THRISSUR-88, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. MR. RAJAN, S/O. VELLINGIRI, CHAMUNDI NAGAR, KUTHAMPULLY.P.O, THIRUVILWAMALA VIA, THRISSUR DT. 3. KRISHNAMOORTHY.V, S/O. VISWANATHAN, KUTHAMPULLY.P.O, THIRUVILWAMALA VIA, THRISSUR DT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 19307 OF 2008 - W = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th June 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is impugning Ext. P4 stop memo issued by the Panchayat. 2. According to the petitioner, they have also filed Ext. P6 reply to Ext. P4. A reading of Ext. P4 shows that the stop memo was issued based on the complaint received from the people of the locality. Petitioner has produced as Ext. P3 the complaint said to have been filed. From Ext. P3 complaint it is seen that the main apprehension is regarding the possible health hazard consequent on the installation of the tower. If that be so, this issue has been dealt with by this Court in the judgment in Reliance Infocomm v. Chemancherry Grama Panchayat {2006(4) KLT 695}. Now that the petitioner has filed Ext. P5 reply, it is for the Panchayat to consider the matter in the light of the contentions raised in Ext. P5 and the judgment referred to above. W.P.(C) No. 19307 OF 2008 -2- 3. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition itself directing that the 1st respondent shall take a final decision on Ext. P5 in the manner as above and with notice to the complainants. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment . 4. In the meanwhile the petitioner will be permitted to continue the work of installation of the tower, but, however, the energisation of the tower will be permitted only after orders passed by the Panchayat in the manner as directed above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the Panchayat for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-