IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 21803 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIOM NET WORKS LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, GOWRA TRINITY, CHIRAN FORT LANE, BEGUMPET, SECUNDERABAD-500 003, AND CIRCLE OFFICE AT J & CO. CHAMBERS, MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. SUDEVAN V.D. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, KADUTHURUTHI POLICE STATION, KADUTHURUTHY-686604. 2. SRI. T.N.PRABHAKARAN, PATTAYIL HOUSE, EZHUMANTHURUTHU, EZHUMANTHURUTH P.O., MUTTUCHIRA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 613. 3. AJITH, CHENGANARKUTTU HOUSE, EZHUMANTHURUTHU, EZHUMANTHURUTH P.O., MUTTUCHIRA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 613. ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL FOR R3 SMT.NIMA JACOB FOR R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARIMSA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.21803/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AGREMEENT DATED 7/2/2011. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 22/2/2011 ISSUED BY KADUTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P3; COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22/3/2011. EX.P4; COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF EXT.P3. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 21803 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This writ petition has been filed by a company which provides infrastructure for the providers of the mobile telephone service. The petitioner company seeks police protection for the construction of mobile tower and the allegation is that the construction is being obstructed by respondents 2 and 3. 2. Though notice was served on respondents 2 and 3 by special messenger, it is only the 3rd respondent who has entered appearance. It was submitted by Sri.V.K.Sunil learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent that the 3rd respondent has been arrayed as a party in the writ petition without any justifiable reason. The 3rd respondent is an office bearer of a youth organisation of the State and the intention of the petitioner in arraying the third respondent as a party is not clean. The intention is to make it appear as if the third respondent and the organisation to which he belongs are opposed to development. WPC.No.21803/2011 2 Our attention was drawn by Mr.Sunil to Ext.P2 building permit as well as Ext.P3 complaint submitted by the petitioner to the Station House Officer. The learned counsel submitted that the local authority issued the building permit in haste and Ext.P3 complaint is instituted on the basis of apprehensions which are not real. As already indicated, the 2nd respondent who is also described as a person obstructing to the proposed construction has not turned up before this court denying the averments in the writ petition. 4. Having considered the averments in the writ petition and submissions addressed before us by Sri.A.Mohamed Mustaque learned counsel for the petitioner and also by Sri.V.K.Sunil learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, we are of the view that the protection direction can be granted in favour of the petitioner in case the proposed construction is obstructed by anybody. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition directing the first respondent to afford necessary protection to the petitioner for completing the construction of the mobile tower, which is subject matter of this writ petition, is not obstructed by anybody in the locality. WPC.No.21803/2011 3 We make it clear this judgment is not to be interpreted as this court accepting the allegation levelled in this writ petition against the 3rd respondent. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk