IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 3659 of 2010(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- WIRELESS - TT INFO SERVICES LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5-9-62, 5TH FLOOR, KHAN LATEEF KHAN ESTATE KLK ESTATE, FATEH MAIDAN ROAD, HYDERABAD, 500001 & CIRCLE OFFICE AT J & CO CHAMBERS, MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN - 24 THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.SUDEVAN V.D BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.T.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KIZHAKOTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, P.O.KIZHAKOTH, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DT. 2. THE SECRETARY, KIZHAKOTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O.KIZHAKOTH, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DT. ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA FOR R1,2 SRI.C.P.SIVADASAN NAIR FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT.P1. True copy of the agreement dated 20.10.2004. Ext.P2. True copy of the permit dated 20.10.2004. Ext.P3. True copy of the acknowledgment receipt issued by the 2nd respondent Ext.P4. True copy of the decisoin of the Panchayat dated 15.12.2009 Ext.P5. True copy of the decision of the Panchayat dated 15.12.2009 Ext.P6. True copy of the decision of the Panchayat dated 18.12.2009 // true copy // P.S to Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.3659 OF 2010 (F) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, on the strength of Ext.P2 permit issued by the respondent Panchayat, they erected a tower. However, without submitting completion certificate and getting the tower numbered, petitioner started using the tower for its purposes. 2. It would appear that there was protest from the locality, which made the petitioner to approach this court by filing WP(c). No.3490/2009. It was subsequently that on 16.11.2009 that the petitioner submitted completion certificate to get the tower regularized. The receipt of the completion certificate has been acknowledged by the Panchayat by Ext.P3. However, by Ext.P4, Panchayat informed the petitioner that in view of the protest from the locality a meeting will be convened and their application for regularization will be considered after the issues are sorted out. 3. Petitioner submits that in pursuance thereof, although meeting was held, the issues still remain unresolved and that their application for regularization is also kept pending for that reason. It WPC.No.3659/2010 :2 : is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 4. Panchayat, on the other hand, contends that in areas where disputes as the one raised by the local people are prevailing, orders issued by the Government require them to hold meetings and to sort out the differences. It is stated that in the light of the Government order, only if the issues are sorted out, can the application made by the petitioner be considered. 5. In the light of the Government Order relied on by the Panchayat though the steps taken by the Panchayat cannot be faulted, after reasonable efforts are taken by the Panchayat, if the issues do not get sorted out, at least at that stage, the Panchayat is required to consider the application made by the petitioner for regularization of the construction made by the Petitioner. Therefore, the Panchayat cannot keep the application made by the petitioner pending for ever. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. 6. That the Panchayat shall convene yet another meeting of the people, who have protested against the tower erected by the petitioner and make another attempt to sort out the issues. This WPC.No.3659/2010 :3 : shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that once meeting is held as above, the Panchayat shall thereafter consider the application submitted by the petitioner for regularization of the tower erected by him and orders on the application shall be passed in accordance with law. This shall be done without any further delay. Petitioner may produce a copy of the judgment before the first respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/