IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1847 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.23747/2011 Dated 15/11/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 48 YEARS VACHAL PATENIYIL HOUSE, KARANTHADU.P.O, VIA RAMANTHALI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. M/S. ESSAR TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD., 36/2624, FIRST FLOOR, CHARAMANGALATH HOUSE, SHENOY ROAD, COCHIN - 682 017, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER (LEGAL AND SITE ACQUISITION) MR. BABU PATTATHANAM. 2. RAMANTHALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RAMANTHALI.P.O, PIN - 670 307, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DEPUTY SUEPRINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 104. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 307. 5. PADMANABHAN.P.V, S/O. KUNHAMBU, PAYYAM VALAPPIL HOUSE, VENGARA VIA, PALAKKAD.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 305. R1 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM R2 BY ADV. SRI.O.V. MANIPRASAD. R3 & R4 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1847 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents. 2. The writ petitioner is before us as appellant in this appeal. According to the appellant, the issuance of building permit to the 1st respondent is without any documentary proof of ownership, therefore, factually such permit ought not have been given. Even otherwise, according to him, under the provisions of the Panchayat Building Rules, the permit once issued could be extended one more time and not beyond once. In the present case, for the third time the permission was granted, which is against the provisions of law, therefore, the 1st respondent should not be allowed to complete the construction of the tower. 3. So far as the 1st respondent is concerned, according to them, the construction now put up is for the third time and the second extension. It is submitted, by this time W.A. No.1847 of 2011 -:2:- major portion of the construction is completed and they would be able to complete the same within 23.02.2012, which is the second extended period. 4. The learned Judge after referring to the opinion of the Tribunal with reference to Rule 141(10) of the Municipality Building Rules and also Rule 130(7) of Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, proceeded to hold that there was no impediment or hurdle for the 1st respondent for the non-completion of the building as put forth by the present petitioner was erroneous as the facts revealed before the Court indicated that the 1st respondent was not at all responsible for the non-construction of the tower within the time specified, as the villagers concerned were responsible for delaying the construction. It is further submitted that on two occasions whatever was put up by the 1st respondent as tower construction was pulled down and for the third time they are putting up the construction of the tower. 5. When we go through the judgment of the learned Single Judge we note that the delay was entirely due to various challenges to the construction of the tower by the residents W.A. No.1847 of 2011 -:3:- including the present appellant. As 3/4th of the construction of the tower is completed, we are of the opinion there is no point at this stage to consider whether the provisions of Kerala Panchayat Building Rules would be applicable or Rule 141(10) of Municipality Building Rules would be applicable. The extension of time is only due to reasons which were not within the control of the 1st respondent and when he is not responsible for the delay in putting up the construction of the tower, there is justification in extending the time to complete the construction of the tower. We find no good reason to differ from the opinion of the Tribunal and also the learned Single Judge. 6. Then coming to the other issue, we note that, in the earlier writ petition filed by the 1st respondent in W.P.(C) No.19189 of 2010, this appellant was made as 5th respondent, when the 1st respondent came up seeking police protection for completing the construction of the tower. At that time this appellant did not even bother to appear before the Court to bring to the notice of the Court what exactly was the alleged illegality now contended by them. In that view of the matter, we are of W.A. No.1847 of 2011 -:4:- the opinion, there is no justification for the appellant at this hour to raise all the issues having kept quiet at the relevant point of time. In view of the above discussion and reasoning we are of the opinion nothing remains for our consideration. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb