IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 2309 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED, S.L.PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN - 682 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, BOBBY JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MARARIKULAM NORTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH, S.L.PURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 523. 2. THE SECRETARY, MARARIKULAM NORTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH S.L.PURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 523. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GP V MANU ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN FOR R1,2 SRI.P.C.ANIL KUMAR FOR R1,2 R1,2DARSAN SOMANATH FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.2309 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 JUDGMENT On 17.1.2008, the petitioner, a Mobile Telecommunication Service provider, filed this writ petition, challenging Ext.P2 issued by the Secretary of the first respondent panchayat on 26.12.2007. The writ petition was admitted. Pending the writ petition, the operator also sought for review of Ext.P2. The Secretary rejected that vide Ext.P3, stating among the other things that there are reasons why the Secretary does not disagree with Ext.P2. 2. Whether the Secretary of a Grama Panchayat has the power to review his orders is not an issue that requires to be gone into for the purpose of deciding this case. This is because, Ext.P2 order is issued by the Secretary, stating that the application for Wpc 2309/2008 2 permit to erect a tower cannot be considered at that point of time having regard to the resolution of the Grama Panchayat in terms of its decision on 14.5.2007, in view of the public opposition to the erection of the tower. This obviously shows that the panchayat Secretary was guided by a resolution of the Grama Panchayat in issuing Ext.P2. 3. When a statutory power to decide on an application for building permit is specifically conferred on the Secretary by the KMBR, he cannot decide on that application, by relying on any extraneous material including the resolution of a Grama Panchayat. 4. Even on the face of Ext.P2, the only reason stated is the agitated public mood. This, going by the decision of this court in Reliance Info com V.Chemmancherry Grama Panchayat (2006(4)KLT 695)is not sustainable. Not only that, if on public agitation, the Wpc 2309/2008 3 matter was deferred on 26.12.2007, going by the last sentence in Ext.P2, it is high time that the application is taken up for fresh consideration. 5. Therefore, without going into the sustainability or otherwise of the order passed by the Secretary on the review petition of the petitioner, Ext.P2 and all consequential decisions thereon are quashed hereby and the Secretary of the first respondent is directed to take up the petitioner's application for building permit and decide on it in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner an opportunity to place further materials, if necessary. Let this be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All other issues are left open. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/8/12