IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 10361 of 2007(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ BHARATI AIRTEL LIMITED FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHARTI TELE-VENTURES LIMITED,"BHARATI TOWERS", S.A ROAD,KADAVANTHRA,KOCHI-682 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER-LEGAL,SRI.P.JAYABAL MENON. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THRIPRANGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THRIPANGODE P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY,THRIPANGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT,THRIPANGODE P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.10361 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 7th February, 2008 JUDGMENT In spite of successive orders, the Panchayat has not filed any counter affidavit. On 1.2.2008 an order was passed directing the Panchayat to file counter affidavit or at least to produce a copy of the complaint on the basis of which Ext.P2 order was issued by the Panchayat. The Panchayat has not produced even a copy of the complaint. It appears to me that the complaint on the basis of which Ext.P2 was passed was to the effect that energisation of the mobile tower will result in health hazards to the people residing nearby. Obviously, the Panchayat has not taken into account the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Reliance Infocom Ltd. V. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat (2006(4) KLT 695) while passing Ext.P2 order which is apparently issued without hearing the petitioner who had been issued with a permit for construction. On the strength of the interim order dated 26.3.2007 the tower is now constructed. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to energise the tower. There is controversy at the Bar as to whether it is necessary for the petitioner-company to take out a licence under under Rule 12 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 before energisation. I do W.P.C.No.10361/07 - 2 - not propose to settle that controversy now. But so long as Ext.P2 stands and the construction of the tower was only on the basis of the interim order passed by this court, it may not proper to permit the petitioner to energise the tower. But at the same time Ext.P2 was issued without notice to the petitioner and without taking into account the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above, it is necessary that the Panchayat reconsiders Ext.P2. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P2 and direct the Panchayat to hear the petitioner-Company and also a representative of the complainant who submitted complaint before the Panchayat and take a fresh decision as to whether the permit was liable to be cancelled. Fresh decision as directed above shall be taken by the Panchayat the earliest and at any rate within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. While taking fresh decision the Panchayat shall have due regard to the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this court in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemancherry Grama Panchayat (supra). If the decision of the Panchayat pursuant to this judgment comes to be in favour of the petitioner-Company, the petitioner-Company can go ahead with the energisation of the tower. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE W.P.C.No.10361/07 - 3 -