IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30237 of 2011(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ INDIA TELECOM INFRA LTD.NO.42/1327(1), 2ND FLOOR, V.S.ARCADE, POWER HOUSE ROAD, OPP.POWER HOUSE, KACHERIPADI, COCHIN-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON BOBY SEBASTIAN, CIRCLE HEAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-PIN-691 001. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, IRAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM-PIN-691 011. 3. MR.SATHYAN, KAVINTTAZHIKOM, PUTHENNADA, THEKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM-PIN-691 016. 4. MR.VIJAYAN, S/O.VIDHYADHARAN, CLAVIRA VEEDU, PUTHENNADA, THEKKEVILA, KOLLAM-PIN-691 016. 5. KOLLAM CORPORATION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM-PIN-691 001. R1 & R2 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.30237/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY GOVT. OF INDIA TO M/S.INDIA TELECOM INFRA LTD., DTD. 16.8.2007 (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS NK DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES LTD.) EXHIBIT P1(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GOVT. OF INDIA TO THE PETITIONER SHOWING THE CHANGE OF NAME DATED 19.6.2008. EXHIBIT P2- THE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29.4.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 03.06.2010. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 8.4.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 30237 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The learned standing counsel for the Corporation submits that the petitioner is not entitled to claim deemed permit. The application for permit submitted by the petitioner was returned to the petitioner after noticing certain defects. Instead of curing the defect, what the petitioner did was to challenge the order. This is not a case where the deemed permit can be assumed in favour of the petitioner. In view of the above submission, we close this writ petition. It is open to the petitioner to seek revival of this writ petition once the petitioner is issued with the permit. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk WPC.No. 2