IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2007 / 13TH PAUSHA 1928 WP(C).No. 36243 of 2007(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- MUHAMMED ALI, S/O ABOOBACKER, AGED 47 YEARS, PALOLI HOUSE, THIRUVAMBADI, CALICUT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. M/S IDEA MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS LTD., SECOND FLOOR, MERCY ESTATE, RAVIPURAM, COCHIN-15. 2. THE THIRUVAMBADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR, SR. GOVT. PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2008, ALONG WITH WPC 31192 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 36243 OF 2007 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2007 JUDGMENT Sri.Santhosh Mathew enters appearance for the 1st respondent. He submits that Ext.P2 building permit was issued by the Secretary pursuant to orders passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions on appeal which had been submitted by the 2nd respondent against an earlier order of the Secretary rejecting permit. According to him so long as Ext.P2 is not under challenge, no useful purpose will be served by directing the 3rd respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3. Sri.T.G.Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner does not agree. According to him, the 3rd respondent who is the District Magistrate also has invoked his powers under Section 133 Cr.PC for abating public nuisance. According to him, on entertaining Ext.P3, the 3rd respondent directed the Panchayat to submit a report. The Panchayat is not submitting report at all. I do not propose to go into the merits of the matter. Apparently the 3rd respondent who is the District Magistrate has invoked Section 133 of the Cr.PC and called for a report from the Panchayat. The Panchayat ought to have sent a report at the earliest. Under these circumstances, I dispose of the Writ Petition issuing the following WPC No. 36243 of 2007 2 directions: The 2nd respondent Panchayat will submit the report called for by the 3rd respondent on Ext.P3 at the earliest and at any rate within 10 days of receiving copy of this judgment. Once the 3rd respondent receives the above report the 3rd respondent will issue hearing notice to the petitioner, at least one among the various signatories to Ext.P3 and also to the 1st respondent company. The 3rd respondent will issue hearing notice to the Panchayat also. The 3rd respondent is permitted to conduct any further enquiry on Ext.P3 as he deems fit. Hearing will be conducted thereafter by the 3rd respondent and final orders will be passed on the basis of the enquiry and the hearing at his earliest and at any rate within two months of receiving report from the 2nd respondent Panchayat. The 1st respondent is permitted to continue with the construction of the mobile tower in the light of the judgment of this court in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat [2006 (4) KLT 695]. Energisation of the tower will be after the Collector has passed orders on the issue of passing conditional order under Section 133(d) taking a decision on the request of the petitioner to pass conditional orders. The conditional order also will not be passed without hearing the 1st respondent company. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE btt WPC No. 36243 of 2007 3