IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 1106 of 2009(D) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4444/2009 Dated 25/08/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 9 AND 10 IN WPC ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SUNDERESHAN, PANAVILLAYIL HOUSE, VALLIKUNNAM, PUTHENCHANTHA. 2. JACOB JOHN, SHAJI BHAVAN, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL RESPONDENT(S): WRIT PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1-8 -------------------------------------------------- 1. INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, N.B.BYE PASS, MARADU P.O., KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, PREMAKRISHNAN NAIR, M.N.HEAD LEGAL. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA. 6. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHERTHALA. RP.No. 1106 of 2009 2 7. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VALLIKUNNAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 8. SECRETARY, THANEERMUKKOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KAKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 9. SECRETARY, VALLIKUNNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SRI.K.HARILAL FOR R9 SRI.P.SATHISAN SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW FOR ADDL.R10 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JJ ------------------------------------------ R.P.No.1106 of 2009 in W.P.(C). No.4444 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December,2009 ORDER Kurian Joseph.J Respondents 9 and 10 in the writ petition are the review petitioners. The writ petition was filed praying for police protection for construction of mobile tower. That writ petition was disposed of along with a batch of other cases with certain directions. It is made clear in the judgment that the construction of the base tower itself shall not be taken as permission to operate the tower. Anybody aggrieved by the license to operate the mobile tower was also given the liberty to approach the civil court also. We are informed that people of the locality, whose case is pursued by the review petitioners have filed a civil suit before the Sub Court, Mavelikkara and the said suit is pending. It is the contention of the review petitioners, that in an earlier case this court had held that police protection cannot be granted for the purpose of construction of mobile tower. In the present case the construction of the base of the mobile tower is over. What remains is only commissioning of mobile tower. We have made it clear in the judgment itself that any person aggrieved by the license/permit is free to pursue their grievance either before the TDSAT or before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions or to approach civil court. The vehement R.P.No.1106 of 2009 in W.P.(C). No.4444 of 2009 2 contention of the review petitioners is that operation of the mobile tower in a thickly populated area will cause serious health hazards. It is also contended that Government has issued a circular dated 10/8/2009 giving instructions to the effect that when there is serious objection by the people, a conference of all the parties should be convened and the possibility of finding unobjectionable place should be explored. These are all matters for the review petitioners to persue either in the civil case already instituted by the people and which is referred to above or before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions or before the TDSAT. It is now settled law that no review will lie only on the ground that a different view was taken by another Court or bench. [Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. V. Alagendran Exports Ltd., (2004) 13 SCC 377 and State of West Bengal and others V. Kamal Sengupta and another, (2008) 8 SCC 612]. Therefore without prejudice to the liberties to the review petitioners to pursue their grievances as above, the review petition is dismissed. All the interlocutory applications are dismissed. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE ssn