IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28105 of 2011(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- VIOM NET WORKS LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, GOWRA TRINITY, CHIRAN FORT LANE, BENGUMPET, SECUNDERABAD - 500 003 AND CIRCLE OFFICE AT J & CO CHAMBERS, MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN - 24, THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY M. SANTHOSH KUMAR. BY ADVS. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE, SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 101. 2. MANOJ, POOVATHIMEETHAL HOUSE, MANGLAD, PONMERI PARAMBIL.P.O., VELLIYAPPILLI (VIA), KOZHIKODE - 673 101. 3. RINEESH, VELLUMAM VATTIL, MANGALAD, PONMERI PARAMBIL.P.O., VELLIYAPPILLI (VIA), KOZHIKODE - 673 101. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.K. ABOOBACKER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.28105/2011-K: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 11/10/2010 EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PERMIT DTD. 16/11/2010 ISSUED BY AYANCHERI GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. DTD 12/10/2011. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF EXT.P.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28105 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Pius C. Kuriakose, J. The petitioner, who provides Passive Telecom infrastructure to the Telecom Service providers, has approached this court complaining that respondents 2 and 3 are obstructing construction of mobile tower by the petitioner company pursuant to Ext.P1 agreement. It is alleged that it is on the ground of health hazard that the party respondents are raising obstructions. The petitioner claims that they are having requisite permits and licence for construction of the mobile tower and that the ground of obstruction is not real. 2. Even though the respondents were served with notice by special messenger, none of them have come forward to resist this writ petition. The averments in the writ petition stands established by non traverse as against W.P.(C).28105/11 -2- the party respondents. We do not find reason as to why the protection sought for should not be granted. We allow the writ petition and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant adequate protection to the petitioner company for the construction of the mobile tower in question, if it is reported to the 1st respondent that respondents 2 and 3 or anybody acting under them are obstructing the construction. We make it clear that this order will rule only so long as Ext.P2 building permit is valid. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb