IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7384 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.G.MICHAEL, S/O.T.X.GEORGE, AGED 70 YEARS, THOTTUKADAVIL HOUSE, CHERIYAKADAVU, KANNAMALI P.O., KOCHI-682 008. BY ADV. SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. WIRELESS-TT INFO SERVICES LIMITED, REG.OFFICE AT 5-9-62, 5TH FLOOR, KHAN LATHEEF KHAN ESTATE, FATEH MAIDAN ROAD, HYDERABA, PIN-500001 AND CIRCLE OFFICE AT J & CO CHAMBERS, MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-24 THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MRS.SUDEVAN.V.D. 2. CHELLANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH (SPECIAL GRADE), REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNAMALI P.O., KOCHI-682 008. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).7384/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT 2nd respondent issued building permit dated 6.10.2009 to the 1st respondent permitting them to construct a telecommunication tower. Objections were raised and meetings were held and finally Ext.P3 order was passed by the 2nd respondent, requiring the 1st respondent to shift the site of the tower. Ext.P3 order was challenged before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No.83/2010. The appeal was allowed by Ext.P4 order dated 22.2.2010 and Ext.P3 order was set aside. It is challenging Ext.P4 this writ petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the proceedings having been initiated based on the Government Circular dated 10.8.2009, the reasoning of the Tribunal is incorrect. 3. As already stated, the appeal was filed against Ext.P3. W.P.(C).7384/10 2 Although the 1st respondent was entitled to erect mobile tower at the site mentioned in the permit, by this order the 1st respondent was directed to shift the location of the mobile tower to some other site. It is appreciating this factual aspect, the Tribunal found that Ext.P3 amounts to cancellation of the building permit, which is possible only under Rule 16 of the Building Rules. It is stated that as per the proviso to Rule 16 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, an opportunity to the permit holder, was not afforded before issuing the impugned order. Tribunal has also held that no sustainable grounds are assigned in Ext.P3 to order cancellation of the building permit. Rule 16 specifies the grounds on which a building permit can be suspended or revoked. None of the grounds enumerated in Rule 16 are incorporated in Ext.P3. In that view of the matter, reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be faulted. I do not find any illegality in the findings of the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs