IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 498 of 2011(J) ---------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- WIRELESS-TT INFO SERVICES LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, GOWRA TRINITY, CHIRAN FORT LANE, BEGUMPET, SECUNDERABAD-500 003 AND CIRCLE OFFICE AT J&CO.CHAMBERS, MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPALLY, COCHIN-24 THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.SUDEVAN V.D. BY ADVS. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COCHIN CORPORATION, CORPORATION ZONAL OFFICE, EDAPALLY, KOCHI-24. 2. COCHIN CORPORATION, ZONAL OFFICE, EDAPALLY, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, COCHIN-24. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. S. RAMESH BABU, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.498 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 7th January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The petitioner submitted an application for construction of mobile tower. According to the petitioner, such an application was submitted as early as on 18.2.2010. It is contended that, in terms of the provisions under Rule 141 of the Kerala Building Rules, on receipt of such an application the competent authority is bound to consider and pass orders thereon within 30 days from the date of application. Alleging failure on the part of the competent authority to pass orders in terms of Rule 141(8) of the Kerala Building Rules the petitioner started the erection work of the mobile tower. Thereupon, the first respondent Corporation initiated proceedings under section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act (for short `the Act'). The petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 objection on receipt of notice under section 406 of the Act. In fact, in the meanwhile, the first respondent has passed a final order under section 406 of the Act. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P4 final order was passed without considering the objections raised by the petitioner against the provisional order. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Ext.P4 is an appealable order. Therefore, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4, it will be open to the petitioner to resort WP(C).No.498/2011 2 to the appellate remedy. At the same time, the grievance of the petitioner is that the application submitted by him for grant of permit for construction of mobile tower is still pending before the first respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent, thereupon, submitted that the application would be disposed of expeditiously. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and considering the fact that the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of permission to construct mobile tower dated 18.2.2010 is pending before the first respondent, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised in this writ petition, it is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority under the first respondent to consider the application dated 18.2.2010 and pass orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that till such time no further construction shall be made by the petitioner. It is also made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against Ext.P4, in case the petitioner desires to do so, in accordance with the provisions under the Act. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // True copy //