IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 354 of 2008(P) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ VADAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR LIMITED FORMERLY KNOWN AS HUTCHISON ESSAR CELLULAR LTD. XL-5115, ASHIS BUILDING, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, COCHIN-682 031, REP. BY ITS MANAGER-LEGAL, RAJESH MELETH VEETIL. BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAYYOLI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. SHAJI, S/O. KUNHIKANNAN, VETTUVAN KANDIYIL (H), IRINGAL P.O., MOORAD, QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. VINDODAN, S/O. KORAN, PADINHARE THURUTHI (H), IRINGAL P.O., MOORAD, QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. *5. SECRETARY, PAYYOLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IRINGAL P.O., MOORAD, QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE DIST. *ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14/01/2008 IN IA NO. 641/2008. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 354/2008 P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT, NO. 164/2007-08 DT, 27/06/2007 ISSUED BY THE IRINGAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 14/11/2007 FILED BEFORE THE R2. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 14/11/2007. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVT. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4A. COPY OF THE MODIFICATION OF THE P5 LICENSE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ======================== W.P(C).No.354 of 2008 ======================== Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner is a Company engaged in the business of providing Mobile phone services. It proposed to erect a tower at a site in Quilandy. The petitioner claims that it has obtained necessary clearances and permissions. When it started erection of the tower, respondents 3 and 4 tried to obstruct the same. Though the police was moved by Ext.P2 representation, they did not take any effective action. Hence, this writ petition seeking police protection. 2. Respondents 3 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit stating that there is already a Mobile phone tower erected by the B.S.N.L. in that area. The erection of another town in that area which is already affected by Tsunami may be a threat to the safety of the local people. So, the petitioner should not be permitted to erect the tower. It will be health hazard to the people of the locality, it is submitted. 3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations of respondents 3 and 4 and dealing with their contentions. If respondents 3 and 4 are aggrieved by the WP(C)354/08 -: 2 :- erection of the tower, they may move the statutory authority or the competent civil court and obtain appropriate orders. In the absence of any order of the competent authority to stop the erection of the tower, the petitioner should be conceded the right to erect the same. If any obstruction is offered by respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner may inform the police and in that event, the obstruction shall be removed. Needless to say, this direction will be subject to any orders that may be passed by the statutory authority or the competent civil court in favour of respondents 3 and 4 or others. In other words, if the Panchayath cancels the permit granted to the petitioner, or any court or authority prohibits construction, the order of this Court will not enable the petitioner to continue with the erection of tower. Writ petition is disposed of as above. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 23/1