IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6875 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BHARGAVA PANICKER, VENATTU, NADUVILE MURI, PADANILAM P.O., NOORANADU. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NOORANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PADANILAM P.O., NOORANADU. 2. INDAS TOWERS LIMITED, CIRCLE OFFICE AT VENGARATHU TOWERS, 8TH FLOOR, N.H.BY-PASS, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-24, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON PREMA KRISHNAN NAIR M.N. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.6875 of 2010 (H) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P9 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self government Institutions disposing of Appeal No.1005/2009 filed by the 2nd respondent. 2. The 2nd respondent was issued a building permit enabling it to construct a telecommunication tower. It is stated that the petitioner and certain others made complaints against the installation of the tower, which made the Panchayat to issue Ext.P5 show cause notice, which was followed by Ext.P6 order requiring the 2nd respondent to keep all activities for construction of the mobile tower in abeyance. 3. It would appear that the proceedings were initiated relying on Ext.P4 circular dated 10/08/2009 issued by the Local Self Government Department of Government of Kerala, stating that if there is any complaint about the location of any proposed tower, the Panchayat should intervene and discuss the issue with all concerned and try to sort out the issue. Ext.P4 further proceeds that stop WP(C) No.6875/2010 -2- memo shall not be issued otherwise than in compliance with the Rules. 4. It was against Ext.P6 that an appeal was filed, and by Ext.P9 order, dealing with Ext.P6 the Tribunal held that none of the reasons mentioned in Ext.P6 are referable to Rule 16 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules providing for revocation of building permit. On that basis the appeal was allowed and challenging this order the writ petition is filed. 5. In so far as Ext.P4 circular dated 10/08/2009 on the basis of which Ext.P6 was issued is concerned, the Tribunal has held that even going by Ext.P4, stop memos are to be issued only as per the Rules and Ext.P6 does not disclose any such sustainable grounds justifying invocation of Rule 16. The Tribunal has also held that reasons stated in Ext.P6 are unsustainable. Having regard to the contents of Ext.P4, P5 & P6 and the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal in Ext.P9, I do not find any error in the order warranting interference with Ext.P9 order. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg