IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 WP(C).No. 32485 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIOM NET WORKS LTD., 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 (DEPUTY MANAGER-LEGAL) MR.M.SANTHOSH KUMAR BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLURUTHI POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 682 006. 2. V.O.JEROME, VELIPARAMBIL VEEDU, PERUMBADAPPU, PALLURUTHI P.O – 682 006, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. V.T.BAIJU, VETTIKATT HOUSE, S/O. THANKAPPAN, PERUMBADAPPU, PALLURUTHI P.O -682 006, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER ADV. SMT.V.V.ASHA FOR R2-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32485 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD.10.8.2011 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PERMIT DTD.3.9.2011 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER DTD.30.11.2011 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF EXT.P3 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.HARILAL,JJ ------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.32485 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pius C. Kuriakose, J It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that respondents 2 and 3 have absolutely no objection to the petitioner company for erecting and operating the proposed mobile tower. But according to her the owners of the building upon which the tower is proposed to be erected are having certain serious disputes with the neighbours. We record the submissions of the counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and dispose of this writ petition on the basis that police protection directions are necessary against respondents 2 and 3. If anybody else is obstructing, it is open to the petitioner company to initiate fresh writ petition, arraying the persons who are actually obstructing. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K.HARILAL JUDGE ab