IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16749 of 2011(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DELTA TELECOM INDIA PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS REGD.OFFICE AT 17 SHILPIN CENTRE,40,G D AMBEDKAR MARG,WADALA WEST,MUMBAI-400031, MAHARASHTRA REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.MR.ANIL CHANDRAN, THROUGH HIS P/A HOLDER MR.RINOY K.L., S/O.LONA, PROJECT MANAGER B-31, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR-680 307. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATTANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 702. 3. KOODALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOODALI GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, EDAYANNUR P.O., KANNUR-670 595. 4. HARISH K., RAZIYA MANZIL, KOLOLAM, EDAYANNUR P.O., KANNUR-670 595. 5. IBRAHIM, KATTUYATHIL PUTHIYAPURA HOUSE, KOLOLAM, EDAYANNUR P.O., KANNUR-670 595. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R3 BY ADV.SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED KUNHI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.16749/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 9/4/2010 BETWEEN M/S. M/S.DELTA TELECOM INDIA PVT LTD AND M/S.INDUS TOWERS. P2 COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.297/2010-11 DATED 17/2/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KOODALI GRAMA PANCHAYAT. P3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13/6/2011. P4 COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13/6/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.16749 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011. JUDGMENT Basant, J: The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions to respondents 1 and 2, police officials, to afford protection to the petitioner to carry out the work of construction of telecommunication tower, shelter and DG room as permitted by Ext.P2 permit issued by the 3rd respondent. Respondents 4 and 5 are allegedly raising illegal obstruction to the construction and it is hence that respondents 4 and 5 have obliged to come before this Court with this petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P2 is a regular permit. The same is valid now. No one has chosen to challenge the issue of Ext.P2 permit to the petitioner. The panchayat has not issued any stop memo. In these circumstances, respondents 4 and 5 have absolutely no right to raise any obstruction, but they are persisting illegal obstruction to the construction. Hence, it is prayed W.P.(C).NO.16749 OF 2011 : 2 : that appropriate directions may be issued to respondents 1 and 2 under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Service is complete. Respondent No.3 has entered appearance. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P2 building permit. The same remains valid. No one has chosen to challenge the permit. No stop memo has been issued by the panchayath. The panchayat does not want to raise any objection against the prayer made in the petition. The learned Government Pleader after taking instructions submits that respondents 1 and 2 have nothing to say against the prayer made in the petition. 4. Our attention has been drawn to Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. C.I. of Police (2010 (2) KLT 782) and Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KHC 171). We are satisfied that police protection is liable to be granted for the petitioner. Inasmuch as respondents 4 and 5 have not chosen to enter appearance and raise any objection and in the light of the stand taken by respondents 1 to 3, we are satisfied that this W.P.(C).NO.16749 OF 2011 : 3 : petition can be allowed. 5. In the result: a. This petition is allowed. b. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioner to undertake the construction of telecommunication tower, shelter and DG room strictly in accordance with Ext.P2 permit against any obstruction that may be raised by respondents 4 and 5. c. Needless to say, the direction hereby issued shall be subject to all observations and conditions in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KHC 171). Sd/= R. BASANT, JUDGE. Sd/= K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. /true copy/ P.S. to Judge cl