IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25795 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASHTEC CONTRACTORS (PVT) LTD, GREAT LAND, UGRAPURAM P.O, AREECODE, MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MAHABOOB C. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM 676 505. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 571. 3. JALEEL, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, KIZHAKKUMPATTIL, NADUVATTOM P.O, KUTTIPPURAM 679 571. 4. RIYAZ, S/O.SAINALAVI, CHITTAKATH VIRIYAKATH, NADUVATTOM P.O, KUTTIPPURAM 679 571. 5. ALI, PALLATHUM PADIKKAL NADUVATTOM P.O,KUTTIPPURAM 679 571. (DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER ON I.A.16243/11 DT.12.10.2011) 6. SAMEER, PARATHIPPARA HOUSE, NADUVATTOM P.O,KUTTIPPURAM 679 571. 7. KUTTIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-679 571. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.T. LILLY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25795 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Abdul Rehim, J. Petitioner is a company engaged in construction of telecommunication towers for telecom service providers. In this writ petition the petitioner is seeking police protection for construction of a mobile tower in a property comprised in Re.Sy.No.271/A of Naduvattom village in Tirur Taluk. According to the petitioner, all the requisite permissions and licence have been obtained for establishment of the mobile tower. But respondents 3, 4, 6 and 7 are causing obstructions to the construction activities. It is stated that, eventhough the 7th respondent Panchayat had cancelled the licence issued, the said decision was reversed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government institutions, in appeal. It is further stated that, in spite of approach made by the petitioner before the respondents 1 and 2, no action has been taken to remove the illegal obstructions and to afford protection. Hence this writ petition is filed. 2. In spite of service of notice from this court, respondents 3, 4, 6 and 7 have not chosen to enter appearance W.P.(C).25795/11 -2- or contest the matter. We notice that the alleged obstruction is caused on the basis of an apprehension of health hazard which may be caused on establishment of the mobile tower. The issue now stands settled through a decision of this court in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KHC 171). 3. Considering the contentions remaining untraversed and also the dictum laid in the decision cited above, we are of the opinion that the respondents 3, 4, 6 and 7 have no manner of right to create any physical obstructions to the construction works undertaken by the petitioner. Hence we dispose of the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to take effective steps to remove obstructions if any and to afford protection to the construction of the mobile tower undertaken by the petitioner. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb