IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23388 of 2011(W) --------------------------------- 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 MR.SUDEVAN.V.D. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, MAVOOR POLICE STATION,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. PRABHAKARAN.V, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, THAROL HOUSE,NARIKUZHI PO,KOZHIKODE 673 601. 3. VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI,S/O.VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI,PARAKKOT ILLOM,NARIKUZHI PO, KOZHIKODE 673 601. * ADDL. R4:- CHATHAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. *[IMPLEADED SUO MOTU VIDE ORDER DT.29/08/11 IN W.P.(C) NO.23388/11] ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH FOR R3 SMT.C.M.CHARISMA, GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23388 of 2011(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY CHATHAMANGALAM GRAMAPANCHAYAT DATED 05/03/10. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PANCHAYAT DATED 21/06/10. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF- GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS IN APPEAL NO.585/10. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.14049/10 DATED 31/03/11 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C. NO.28570/10 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22/08/11. EXT.P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF EXT.P6 DATED 22/08/11. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.23388 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J Petitioner company is seeking police protection against unlawful obstructions alleged to have been caused by respondents 2 and 3 and their men against energisation of a Mobile Tower (Base Transceiver Station) erected by the petitioner and against its maintenance. According to the petitioner, construction of the Mobile Tower in question was completed on the strength of Ext.P1 Building Permit issued by the 4th respondent Panchayat. It is stated that respondents 2 and 3 created obstructions to the construction activities on the premise that establishment of the Mobile Tower will cause health hazard to the neighbouring residents. Hence the petitioner company, under the name and style as it stood on that day, had approached this court seeking police protection, in W.P.(C) W. P. C. No.23388 of 2011 -2- No.14049/10. But during pendency of the said Writ Petition, the 4th respondent Panchayat had cancelled the Building Permit. Therefore, W.P.(C) No.14049/10 was dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach this court later, after getting valid permit, as per Ext.P4 judgment. Cancellation of the permit was challenged by the petitioner company before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram. In Ext.P3 order the Tribunal had allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned proceedings of the Secretary of the 4th respondent Panchayat. It is submitted that the respondents 2 and 3 had challenged the order of the Tribunal in a Writ Petition filed before this Court as W.P.(C) No.28570/10. But in Ext.P5 judgment, the said Writ Petition was dismissed confirming the findings of the Tribunal. 2. It is stated that on the basis of the order of the Tribunal which is confirmed by this court, construction of the Mobile Tower was completed. But the respondents 2 and 3 and persons acting under them are now obstructing W. P. C. No.23388 of 2011 -3- installation of machinery, energisation of the tower and its maintenance. Even though the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 complaint before the 1st respondent, no effective steps are taken to remove such obstructions and to afford protection. Hence this Writ Petition is filed. 3. Inspite of service of notice from this court, respondents 2 and 3 have not entered appearance nor contested the Writ Petition. We are of the considered opinion that, as long as construction of the Mobile Tower is completed on the basis of a valid Building Permit, the petitioner is entitled to energise the same and for operating the tower by doing the requisite maintenance works. Respondents 2 and 3 have no manner of right to create any physical obstructions. 4. Therefore, we dispose of this Writ Petition directing the 1st respondent to take effective steps, if any physical obstruction is caused to the petitioner company in installing machinery, energising the Mobile Tower and maintaining the same, to remove such obstructions and to afford protection W. P. C. No.23388 of 2011 -4- for such activities as and when required. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-