IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14348 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ BINDU S., AGED 39 YEARS W/O.K.JAYAKUMAR, KUNNATHU VEEDU MARIYAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM-23. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHINGAVANOM POLICE STATION, CHINGAVANOM. 2. GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL, KOTTAYAM. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 4. N.SURESH KUMAR, MANKAVIL HOUSE MARIYAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM. 5. SUKUMARI K.R., KAROTTUVENGASSERIL MARIYAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN FOR R2 SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR FOR R4,5 SRI.K.ANIL KUMAR (KOTTAYAM) FOR R4,5 SRI.K.VENUGOPAL (KOTTAYAM) FOR R4,5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.14348/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 20.9.07. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 3.5.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10.11.07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 2.2.05 OF THE REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 29.8.07 OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.1238/08 DATED 17.5.2008 PASSED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF 4TH RESPONDENT ISSUED BY TRAVANCORE CEMENTS LTD., NATTAKOM. EXT.R4(b): TRUE COPY OF PUNCHING CARD. EXT.R4(b)(1):ATTENDANCE CERTIFICATE FROM TRAVANCORE CEMENTS LTD., KOTTAYAM. EXT.R4(c): TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.2.2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(e): TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION DATED 14.3.2008 OF GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NATTAKOM. TRUE COPY K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.14348 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF MAY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the owner of a small plot of land. She has leased it out to the BSNL for the erection of a telecommunication tower. The petitioner submits that BSNL has got all the statutory clearances for erecting the tower. But without any justification, respondents 4 and 5 along with others are causing obstruction to the construction of the tower. It is further submitted that the party respondents have filed Exhibit P4 petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer against the construction of the tower. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs. “(i) To call for the records relating to Exts.P1 to P6 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to give Police protection to the petitioner and also the workers and also the contractor engaged by the 2nd respondent to carry out the work of erection of mobile tower in W.P.(C)No.14348/08 -2- petitioner's property in survey No.549/8/6 of Nattakom Village which is covered by Exhibit P1 rent deed and also to direct the first respondent to remove any obstruction, hindrance or any kind of illegal activity carried out by respondents 4 and 5 and their men and others by arresting them and registering criminal cases; (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to carry out the mobile tower erection work immediately; (iii) To issue appropriate order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to reject the petition filed before it on the reason that such petition is not maintainable in view of Exhts.P5 and P6 and also the judgment of this Court.” 2. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed a counter affidavit resisting the prayers in the writ petition. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. 3. We heard learned counsel on both sides. 4. Going by the prayers raised in this writ petition which we have already quoted above, we feel that petitioner has no locus standi W.P.(C)No.14348/08 -3- to approach this Court for the above prayers. It is for the BSNL or its contractor to seek Police protection. But learned counsel for the petitioner relying on certain clauses in Exhibit P1 points out that, the petitioner has also certain obligations under that lease agreement to ensure that no obstruction is caused for the erection of the telecommunication tower. But the Police have no duty to come to the aid of the petitioner to fulfil her obligations under Exhibit P1. If her rights are affected, she can move the civil court. Once the petitioner has leased out the property for the erection of the tower, it is for the lessee to do the construction and if anybody is causing obstruction, the lessee can approach this Court. In view of the above position, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn