IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1929 of 2011(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.IDEA CELLULAR LTD., SECOND FLOOR, MERCY ESTATE, RAVIPURAM, COCHIN-682 015, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, SRI.RAMACHANDRAN.C. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, VAZHAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF THE VAZHAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MARAMPALLY.P.O., ALWAYE-683 107, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. VAZHAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, FFICE OF THE VAZHAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MARAMPALLY.P.O., ALWAYE-683 107, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH SC FOR R-1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 1929 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed mainly challenging Ext.P5 stop memo issued by the first respondent. As per Ext.P1, sanction was accorded to the petitioner for laying Optical Fibre Cable for a distance of 150 meters. Based on the same, Ext.P2 Memorandum of Understanding has been executed between the petitioner and the second respondent Panchayath. A perusal of Ext.P5 would suggest that the same was issued under the presentiment that the petitioner had been doing something impermissible in terms of Ext.P2. In fact, it is evident therefrom that the complaints and objections of the people of the locality have formed the basis for Ext.P5. When this matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per Exts.P1 and P2, laying of Optical Fibre Cable alone is permitted and that the petitioner has been indulging only in the said permissible activity in terms of Exts. WPC.1929/2011 : 2 : P1 and P2. It is further submitted that erection of Mobile Tower or any other construction other than the activities permissible under Exts.P1 and P2 would be undertaken only after getting requisite permission from the competent authorities. It is recorded. The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Panchayath did not dispute the right of the petitioner to undertake the activities permissible in terms of Exts.P1 and P2 and submitted that Ext.P5 stop memo intends only to interdict impermissible activities in terms of Exts.P1 and P2. Thus, it is obvious that as long as the petitioner continues activities strictly in terms of the conditions in Exts.P1 and P2 there cannot be any legal impediment for such continuation in the said circumstances. In view of the said rival submissions I am of the view that in the light of Exts.P1 and P2, there is no further impediments for the petitioner to go on with lawful activities in terms of Exts.P1 and P2. As long as the petitioner is indulging only in activities permitted in terms of Exts.P1 and P2, Ext.P5 memo shall not stand in the way of continuing with the work permitted in terms of Exts.P1 and P2. With the above WPC.1929/2011 : 3 : observation, this writ petition is closed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge