IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31428 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- EDAYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, EDAYUR P.O MALAPPURAM DIST. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M/S.BHARTI INFRATEL LTD., N.H. BYE PASS, KUNDANNUR, P.O.MARADU, ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.31428 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Panchayat. The Panchayat is challenging Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions passed in an appeal filed by the respondent herein in respect of an application for constructing a telecommunication tower. Earlier, the respondent approached this Court and this Court by Ext.P2 judgment, directed the Panchayat to consider the question in the light of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Reliance Infocom Ltd. V. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat [2006(4) KLT 695]. In spite of the same, the Panchayat rejected the application of the respondent for permit for construction of the telecommunication tower. That was challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal, in which Ext.P6 order was passed. The contention of the Panchayat is that although in view of the Division Bench decision the Panchayat cannot reject the application for permitting to construct the telecommunication tower on the ground of health hazards, in W.P.(c)No.31428/08 2 view of the public interest involved, they are entitled to direct the respondent to construct the tower on another location. The Panchayat would submit that the order has been passed in exercise of the power conferred on them under Section 166 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and therefore, Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal is unsustainable. 2. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the source of power of the Panchayat for passing Ext.P6 is available in Section 166 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. On a reading of Section 166, I do not find any such powers conferred on the Panchayat in that Section. When this Court had, very identical circumstances, held in Reliance Infocom Ltd's (supra)case that the local authorities cannot reject an application for permit to construct a telecommunication tower on the ground of health hazards without any scientific data in support of the same, the Panchayat cannot, on the ground that some of the people of the locality have objected to the same, direct the respondent to construct the tower in some other place. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext.P6 order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.31428/08 3