IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 14929 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- M/S.INDIA, TELECOM INFRA LTD., MEENA MADHAVAM, OPP.BHAVANS VIDYA MANDIR, DESHABHIMANI ROAD, ELAMAKKARA.PO., KOCHI.26, REP. BY ITS CIRCLE HEAD, SUNIL MENON. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY(SPECIAL GRADE),KOTTAMKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, T.K.M.C.POST, KUTTICHITA KOLLAM. 2. K.S.SINDHU, 'DEVI PRASADAM', PEROOR, KOLLAMM. 3. S.RAMACHANDRAN POTTI, 'RAM NIVAS', PEROOR KOLLAM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIKKOOLLOOR POLICE STATION, KILIKKOLLOOR PO., KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJKUMAR ADV. SRI.H.HARIKUMAR – R.2, R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).14929/2008-B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.90/08-09 DATED 07/05/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION FEE. EXT.P2(a):COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE PERMIT FEE. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13/05/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13/05/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13/05/2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND OTHERS. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE FRESH STOP MEMO BEARING NO.A2.1811/08 DATED 14/05/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.14929/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P7 stop memo is under challenge. It is seen that, on account of the complaint raised by the residents in the locality, despite a permit that has been granted, the Panchayat, issued Ext.P7 stop memo. Notice was taken by special messenger and in spite of service of notice, none of the respondents entered appearance. 2. On 22.5.2008, an interim order was passed permitting the petitioner to continue the construction of the tower, but however, directing that energisation of the tower will only after obtaining orders from this court. Since, there is no appearance or representation on behalf of the respondents I see no reason to decline relief to the petitioner. In view of this, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P7 stop memo. Now that Ext.P7 has been quashed, it will be open to the petitioner to energise the tower also. ANTONY DOMINIC vi JUDGE 2