IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC SUNDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 21409 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. RAMESH G., S/O GOVINDAN, THEJUS, CADET AVENUE, AMBATTUPALAYAM, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. UNNIKRISHNAN V., S/O VASU, KIZHAKKE HOUSE, DO.....DO.... 3. SOMAN M.P., S/O M.R. PANKAJAKSHAN,GREEN GARDENS DO....DO.... 4. CHINNAPPAN, S/O INNASU, AMAZING GRACE, DO....DO... BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHITTUR - THATHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE THAHSILDAR, CHITTUR ,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHITTUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. SRI. L. GANGADHARAN, S/O LAKSHMANAN, KALLUKUTTIYAL, VERKOLI ROAD, POLPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT; 7. BHARATHI INFRATEL LTD, BY-PASS ROAD, KUNDANNUR, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER/DIRECTOR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON 16/11/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.21409/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The writ petitioner is objecting to the installation of a mobile telecommunication tower by the 7th respondent. The plot of land, according to him, is a paddy land and that erection is proposed to be made without obtaining orders under the Kerala Land Utilisation Orders. Yet another contention is that the 7th respondent has not obtained permit from the 3rd respondent Municipality. 2. Even according to the petitioner, they have already filed Exts.P2 and P3 complaints before the 3rd respondent Municipality. It is further stated that the petitioner has moved the 5th respondent also by filing Ext.P4. If that be so, since the petitioner has already addressed the statutory authorities highlighting their grievances, it is for the authorities to take action on the complaint so made by the 2 petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 3rd respondent shall take note of Exts.P2 and P3 and the 4th respondent shall also take note of Ext.P4. The aforesaid respondents shall conduct necessary enquiry into the allegations raised by the petitioners with notice to respondents 6 and 7 and pass appropriate orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment before the respondents for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 3