IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 32308 of 2007(U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ PALOLI HANEEFA, S/O.MOHAMMED, PADAPARAMBA, PUZHAKKATHRI, VATTALOOR P.O., PERINTHALMANNA. BY ADVS.MR.SAJU.S.A MR.V.G.ARUN MR.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. PUZHAKKATTIRI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUZHAKKATTIRI P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 321. 2. SECRETARY, PAZHAKKATTIRI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUZHAKKATTIRI PO, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 321. 3. RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LIMITED, MANAGER, M & P ARCADE, I.S.A.ROAD, KOCHI. R3 BY ADV. MR.V.G.ARUN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C). No.32308 OF 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner seeks a direction for consideration of Ext.P1, which contains a statement that the local public will be put to inconvenience owing to the installation of a Mobile Telecommunication Tower. The objections in Ext.P1 are so vague that it does not merit consideration. The objections of the local people can be only in accordance with law. There is no plea that Chapter 19 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules has been violated. No ground referable to any health hazards has also been specifically pointed out. Even if it were, the Division Bench decision of this Court in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat [2006(4)KLT 695] covers the same. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps