IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3811 of 2008(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (NP), CMTS, RTP BUILDINGS, LUKES LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SECRETARY (SPECIAL GRADE), MANNANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA. 2. LAL RAVINDRAN, LAL BHAVANAM, KALAVOOR P.O. 3. SAJI, POOVANCHIRA, KALAVOOR P.O. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT 4. THE COMMITTEE OF MANNANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA Additional respondent No.4 impleaded suo motu vide judgment dated 06/02/08 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.3811 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The committee of Mannancherry Grama Panchayat, Alappuzha is impleaded suo motu as additional fourth respondent. Registry will carry out corrections. 2. The BSNL, the petitioner in this writ petition seems to have a genuine grievance. The first respondent Panchayat issued Ext.P1 building permit to the petitioner for construction of a mobile telephone tower. Thereafter the secretary of the Panchayat issued Ext.P2 stop memo stating that a complaint has been received from the neighbouring public regarding the construction of the tower. Pursuant to Ext.P2 stop memo, the Panchayat called the petitioner as well as the complainants for a hearing. None of the complainants turned up at the hearing. The petitioner appeared and submitted that there was no valid reason for cancelling Ext.P1 which had been issued after holding all due enquiries in accordance with the statutory provisions. However, the Panchayat has passed Ext.P3 resolution deciding to cancel WPC.No.3811/08 2 Ext.P1 on the reason that committee members have been told peremptorily by the complainants that they will not permit the construction of the tower. It is clear from Ext.P3 that the Panchayat has not taken into account the judgment of the Division Bench in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat ( 2006(4)KLT 695). Though a copy of the mass petition submitted by the neighbouring public is not available, it is discernible that the ground on which the complaint was submitted by the public was the possibility of health hazards on account of energisation of the tower. The issue in my opinion is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in Reliance Infocom's case. It is seen that the said judgment has not been considered by the Panchayat while passing Ext.P3. I quash Ext.P3 even without notice to the Panchayat and direct the committee of Mannancherry Grama Panchayat to hear the petitioner and also respondents 2 and 3 or any other representative of the persons who filed the compliant which is referred to in Ext.P3 and pass fresh orders on the issue as to whether Ext.P1 permit should be cancelled. While passing fresh orders, the additional 4th respondent shall have due regard to the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this court in Reliance WPC.No.3811/08 3 Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat. It is open to the petitioner to produce before the additional 4th respondent any other material which will convince the additional fourth respondent that the apprehensions of health hazards on account of the energization of the power are not at all well founded. Needful as directed, shall be done by the additional 4th respondent at the earliest and at any rate within one month of receiving a copy of this judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.3811/08 4