IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 11752 of 2011(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.A.JOLLY, S/O.AUGUSTINE, THAIKKOTTATHIL VEEDU, KADAMMAKUDY VILLAGE, KOTHAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KADAMAKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIZHALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-27. 3. THE SECRETARY, KADAMAKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PIZHALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-27. 4. M/S.INDIA TELECOM INFRA LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, CHALLARCHERY TOWER, SEA PORT AIRPORT ROAD, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON, MR.BOBY SEBASTIAN, CIRCLE HEAD. 5. M.F.RANJAN, MUZHANGUMTHARA HOUSE, KOTHAD P.O., KOCHI-27. 6. M.S.PRASAD, VICE PRESIDENT, KADAMAKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PIZHALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-27. ADV. SRI.T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR FOR R2-3 SRI.P.SATHISAN FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.11752/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.1.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT. INSTITUTITONS. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.4.2010 ISSUED BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT. INSTITUTITONS. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.4.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.232/2010. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.8.2010 IN W.P.(C) NO. 19835/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 11.3.2011 IN WP(C) NO. 14094/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.9.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2011 IN APPEAL NO.933/2010 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT-TRIBUNAL. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT GIVING PERMISSION TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO CONSTRUCT THE TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.11752 of 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P8, P9 orders and for incidental reliefs. 2. The petitioner is a resident of Ward No.7 of Kadamakudy Grama Panchayath. It is contended by the petitioner that application for construction of a Telecommunication/Mobile Tower should be accompanied by a site plan approved by the secretary of the Panchayat under Section 235 G of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, that the said provision imposes an absolute prohibition in issuing permission to construct a Telecommunication Tower unless the same is accompanied by a site plan approved by the Secretary of the Panchayat. The case of the petitioner is that the application submitted by the 4 th respondent seeking W.P.(C).No.11752 of 2011 2 grant of permit for constructing the Telecommunication Tower was not accompanied by the Site plan approved by the secretary of the Panchayat. The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order passed by the first respondent and Ext.P9 order issued by the 3 rd respondent. By Ext.P9 order, the 3 rd respondent granted permit to the 4 th respondent to construct Telecommunication/Mobile Tower. 3. The application for grant of building permit was originally rejected by the 3 rd respondent. The 4 th respondent who is aggrieved by the order of rejection preferred appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and quashed the order and directed the 3 rd respondent to re consider the application for grant of permit. Ext. P8 is the order passed by the Tribunal. Pursuant to Ext.P8 W.P.(C).No.11752 of 2011 3 order the 3 rd respondent passed Ext.P9 order granting building permit. Ext.P9 order passed by the 3 rd respondent is an appealable order. Any person aggrieved can prefer appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government. Since statutory remedy is available to the persons aggrieved, no reliefs can be granted by this Court at this stage. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the statutory period for preferring the appeal expired and, that, since 60 days are over the Tribunal may not entertain the appeal. In this circumstance, this Court direct the Tribunal to entertain the appeal as if the appeal is filed within time provided that the petitioner shall prefer appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. The writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to W.P.(C).No.11752 of 2011 4 the right of the petitioner to approach the appellate forum if so advised. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. mns/-