WP(C).No. 27914 of 2010(L) IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 27914 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. INDUS TOWERS LTD.CIRCLE OFFICE AT VANKARATH TOWERS,8TH FLOOR,NH-47,PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-24,REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD-LEGAL, PREMAKRISHNAN NAIR. 2. SHAJI MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, PALATHARA HOUSE, THURUTHY PO,CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,(PARTNER, PALATHARA CONSTRUCTIONS,CHANGANACHERY) BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THRIKKOVILVATTOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MUKHATHALA PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 577, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY. 2. SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, THRIKKOVILVATTOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MUKHATHALA, PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 577, R1 & R2 BY SC. ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27914 of 2010(L) APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ----------------------------------- P1:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, NAIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND HARYANA. P2:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, NATIOANL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND HARYANA. P3:- COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO.177/2008 DATED 10.01.2008 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS & IT, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS. P4:- COPY OF THE FRESH CERTIFICATE OF INCOPORATION CONSEQUENT UPON CHANGE OF NAME ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND HARYANA. P4(a):- COPY OF EXT. P4. P5:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SEND BY THE DIRECTOR (CS-III) OF THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS & IT, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. P6:- COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT BUILDING PERMIT NO.M6-22/09(276) DATED 26.09.09 ISSUED BY THRIKKOVILVATTOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT. P7:- COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.12.2009 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO FIRST PETITIONER P8:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.02.2010 FILED BY 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO THE EXHIBIT P8. P10:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09.04.2010 SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P11:- COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29.04.2010 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO EXT.P10 P12:- COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.477/10 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P13:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED B Y THE RESPPONDENTS IN APPEAL NO.477/10 P14:- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.07.2010 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNEMNT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN APPEAL NO. 477/2010. WP(C).No. 27914 of 2010(L) RESPPONDENT'S EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- R1(a):- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.12.2009 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS BY THE SECRETARY OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH. R1(b):- A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE REGISTER DT.10.12.09 OF THE GRAMA PANHAYATH //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ------------------------ WP(C) No.27914 of 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The first petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The 2nd petitioner is a contractor for erecting mobile tower. Feeling aggrieved by the stop memo issued by the 2nd respondent requiring the petitioners to stop the construction of the mobile tower the petitioners have preferred appeal No.477/10 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Exhibit P12 is the appeal preferred before the Tribunal. Exhibit P13 is the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent in the said appellate proceedings. As per Exhibit P14, taking note of the stand of the respondents that they have not actually issued any stop memo, Exhibit P12 appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. This writ petition has been filed challenging Exhibit P14 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 have jointly filed a counter affidavit in this writ petition. Along with the same, they have produced Exhibit R1(a), the stop memo in question, issued WP(C) No.27914 of 2010 2 requiring the petitioners to stop the construction. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent brought my attention the purpose of said stop memo viz., to facilitate a talk with the agitating public over the issue of erection of mobile tower in the locality. In other words, evidently, the stop memo has been issued not because of any flaw or lapse on the part of the petitioners to comply with the statutory requirements in the matter of construction of mobile tower. The learned counsel also brought my notice to paragraph 8 of the written statement filed before the tribunal that made the tribunal to dismiss the appeal and it reads thus: “It is submitted that the 1st respondent has neither interfered nor made any decision in the matter so far. The 2nd respondent has not issued any stop memo in the matter as alleged in the appeal. The Appellants have approached this Honorable Authority with a view to overcome the protest raised by the public. The Panchayath has arranged the public meeting with a view to settle the issue and to find out a solution in the matter as per the guidelines issued by the Government in the matter”. In this case, as noticed herein before, the basis of Exhibit R1(a) stop memo is not attribution of violation of any of the provisions under the Panchayath Raj Act or any other relevant WP(C) No.27914 of 2010 3 enactments as is from Exhibit R1(a) itself as also from the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition and the written statement filed before the Tribunal. In short, there was no appellable cause of action warranting interference and it was in the circumstances that Exhibit P14 was passed by the Tribunal. In the said circumstance, I do not find any perverseness or illegality in Exhibit P14 that calls for. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a public meeting was already convened pursuant to Exhibit R1(a). Be that as it may, evidently, Exhibit R1(a), the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition as also the written statement filed before the Tribunal reveal no real objection from the part of the respondent Panchayath against the construction attributing any violation of the statutory requirements or conditions of permit. Therefore, recording the said factual position obtained from the pleadings made on behalf of the respondent this writ petition is closed. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. rkc