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. 34940 of 2007(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- M/S. ESSAR TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD., 41/256, C-19, 2ND FLOOR, MATHER SQUARE, OPP. NORTH RAILWAY STATION, COCHIN-682 018, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE (SITE ACQUISITIONS & ADMINISTRATION), MR. RAHUL DAS. BY ADVS. MR.SANTHOSH MATHEW, MR.SATHISH NINAN. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- PANANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT (SPL.GRADE), PATTIKKAD P.O., PIN-680 652, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.34940/2007-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO. A2-56/2007-08 DTD. 25/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PERMIT FEE RECEIPT NO. 54 DTD. 25/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FEE RECEIPT NO. 82/2007-08 DTD. 06/09/2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1-2 332/2007 DTD. 16/11/2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 34940 OF 2007 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 by which a building permit granted for the erection of a Mobile Telecommunication Tower has been subsequently stayed. That order of stay issued by the Grama Panchayat stands stayed by this Court from the stage of admission. There is no counter affidavit. 2. The impugned action has been taken solely on the basis of certain objections raised by the residents in the locality. No ground referable to the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 or the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act has been pointed out in Ext.P4. For the said reason, the impugned order does not stand. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed quashing Ext.P4. No costs. (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps