IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35634 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. RAVEENDRAN.M,S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, MENIYATH HOUSE,IRINGAL PO,VIA-BADAGARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN 673 521. 2. MADATHIL RAJAN,MADATHIL HOUSE, IRINGAL PO, VIA-BADAGARA,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 521. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PAYYOLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REP,BY ITS SECRETARY,PAYYOLI ,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN 673 523. 2. PAYYOLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REP,BY ITS PRESIDENT,PAYYOLI ,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 523. 3. WIRELESS-TT INFO SERVICES LTD., REG.OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR,GOWRA TRINITY,CHIRAN FORT LANE, BEGUMPET,SECUNDERABAD-500 003 AND CIRCLE OFFICE AT J & CO.CHAMBERS, MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPPALLY,COCHIN,PIN 682 024. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAMMED MUSTAQUE FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.35634 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are residents of Ward No.5 of Payyoli Grama Panchayat. Aggrieved by the permission granted to the 3rd respondent by the Secretary of the Payyoli Grama Panchayat, for the construction of a Mobile Transmission Tower, the petitioners have filed Ext.P1 representation before the first respondent requesting for revoking the said permission. It is submitted that though the original of Ext.P1 was submitted way back on 24.9.2010 and nearly two months have passed thereafter, till date no action has been taken on the said representation. In this writ petition, the petitioners seek a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to re-consider the grant of permission to the third respondent for installation of the Mobile Transmission Tower. 2. I heard Sri. K.V.Sohan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Mohammed Mustaque, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. I have also considered the pleadings and materials on record. It is evident from the writ petition itself that the permission has already been granted to the third respondent for installation of the Mobile Transmission Tower. The question whether the said permission has been validly issued or W.P.(C) No.35634 of 2010 2 whether it is liable to be revoked has to be examined by the Secretary of the first respondent Grama Panchayat. Ext.P2 discloses that the request to revoke the permission was received by the first respondent on 24.9.2010. Nearly two months have passed thereafter. A large number of persons have subscribed their signatures to Ext.P1. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the first respondent should consider Ext.P1 representation and take an appropriate decision expeditiously. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P1 representation and take appropriate decision thereon, after notice to the petitioners and the third respondent, expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on which petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment before the first respondent. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.