IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6946 of 2008(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR LTD., FORMERLY KNOWN AS HUTCHISON ESSAR CELLULAR LTD., ASHISH BUILDING, COCHIN-31, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL, RAJESH, MALETH VEETTIL, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN MELETHVEETTIL. BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. NEDUMBASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KARIYAD, MEKKAD P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. K.R.LATHA, W/O.MANAMMEL ARAVINDAN, RESIDING AT MANAMMEL HOUSE, MEKKAD P.O., NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.6946 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT I am of the view that in the nature of the orders which are being passed hereunder, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents. The petitioner, a company providing mobile telephone services was issued with Ext.P1 permit for the construction of a tower on a building belonging to the third respondent. According to the petitioner, when the construction was almost over, the Panchayat issued Ext.P2 notice to them directing them to stop the constructions and also to produce the consent letter from the neighbours and also the suitability certificate from the District Medical Officer. Petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 to Ext.P2 through an advocate. According to the petitioner, nothing has transpired regarding Ext.P2 thereafter. Now Panchayat has issued Ext.P4 demolition order to the third respondent directing her to demolish the tower on the basis that it is an illegal construction. 2. It will not be correct on the part of the Panchayat to say WPC.No.6946/08 2 now, having issued Ext.P1 that the tower constructed on the basis of Ext.P1 is an illegal construction. More over, it is not the third respondent who put up the construction. So demolition if at all, should have been issued to the petitioner only. Since proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Ext.P2 and the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 reply, it is appropriate that those proceedings are brought to their logical conclusion by the Panchayat after hearing the petitioner and the complainants. It is not proper to demolish the tower even before culmination of the proceedings initiated under Ext.P2. I therefore dispose of the writ petition issuing the following directions: The Panchayat will issue hearing notice to the petitioner and also to the President of the Kerala Pulayar Mahasabha, East Mekkad, on whose complaint Ext.P2 was issued, hear both of them and take a final decision as to whether the proceedings initiated under Ext.P2 should be confirmed or should be dropped. Decision as directed above shall be taken at the earliest and at any rate within a period of six weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. It will be open to the Panchayat to decide also as to whether the constructions put up on the building of WPC.No.6946/08 3 the third respondent are illegal on the ground of rule violation or plan deviation and a decision in that regard also will be taken by the Panchayat. Demolition pursuant to Ext.P4 should be deferred till such time as a decision is taken and communicated to the petitioner. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.6946/08 4