IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3971 of 2008(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.ESSAR TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD., 41/256, C-19, SECOND FLOOR, MATHER SQUARE, OPP.NORTH RAILWAY STATION, COCHIN-682 018, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE (SITE ACQUISITIONS & ADMINISTRATION) MR.RAHUL DAS. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KEEZHARIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KEEZHARIYOOR P.O., PIN-673 324, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE KEEZHARIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE, KEEZHARIYOOR P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOYILANDY POLICE STATION, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SRI.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.3971 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P3 order of the Secretary of the Panchayat issued on the basis of the decision taken by the Panchayat Council to cancel the building permit which has been issued to the petitioner is under challenge on various grounds including the ground that Ext.P3 is not preceded by a hearing of the petitioner. As rightly submitted by Sri.Devidas, counsel for the Panchayat, no specific ground has been raised in the writ petition that principles of natural justice has been violated by passing Ext.P3. But in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat, it is conceded that no notice was served on the petitioner prior to cancellation of Ext.P1 permit. The claim is that Panchayat has considered all the relevant aspects while taking Decision No.148/07 dated 24-09-2007 on the basis of which, the Secretary has issued Ext.P3. Sri.Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar permit had been granted to M/s Bharath WPC.No.3971/08 2 Airtel Ltd and the same was also similarly cancelled by the Panchayath. This court by its judgment in W.P.(C)No. 30421/07 and 31356/07 set aside that decision and directed re- consideration. Copy of the common judgment in W.P.(C)No. 30421/07 and 31356/07 is placed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and the circumstance that similar decision taken by the Panchayat in respect of permit granted to M/s Bharth Airtel was ordered to be re-considered by this court, I am inclined to quash Ext.P3 as well as the decision of the Panchayat on the basis of which Ext.P3 was issued. They are so quashed. The second respondent is directed to hear the petitioner and take a fresh decision on the question as to whether Ext.P1 permit is liable to be cancelled on the reasons stated in the public complaint. Panchayat will hear the representative of the complainant also and take a fresh decision as directed above. A fresh decision shall be taken by the Panchayat at the earliest and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to mention that Panchayat should have due regard to the judgment of the Division Bench in Reliance WPC.No.3971/08 3 Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat ( 2006(4) KLT 695) and also other relevant materials produced by either side while taking a fresh decision as directed. If the fresh decision to be taken by the Panchayat comes to be in favour of the petitioner and if a copy of that decision is placed before respondents 3 and 4, those respondents will not hesitate to render necessary assistance to the petitioner, if anybody obstructs the construction of the tower. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.3971/08 4