IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3970 of 2008(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.IDEA MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 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 RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. 2. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT 3. THE SECRETARY MUTTADA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION MUTTADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Additional R3 suo motu impleaded vide order dated 1-02-08. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) for R1 & R2 SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR SRI.M.POLY MATHAI SRI.P.CHELLAPPAN SRI.POLY MATHAI FOR ADDITIONAL R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.3970 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, a Mobile Telephone Company, challenges Ext.P2 stop memo issued in the wake of certain complaints received from the local public. Residents Association representing the local public has got themselves impleaded as additional third respondent. I have heard the submissions of Sri.Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri.Poly Mathai, learned counsel for the additional third respondent. I have also heard the submissions of Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon, learned counsel for the first respondent. According to the additional respondent, they have filed Ext.R3(a) objection before the Mayor of the first respondent Corporation and it was in the wake of Ext.R3(a) that the Corporation issued Ext.P2. According to Sri.Santhosh Mathew, Corporation had not taken into account the principles laid down by this court in Reliance Infocom. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat (2006(4)KLT695). Sri.Poly Mathai submits that health hazzard is not the only ground on WPC.No.3970/08 2 which Ext.R3(a) complaint was submitted, there was a further ground that the building is not strong enough to take the load of two mobile towers. Whatever that be, I am of the view that the issue is to be finalised by the Secretary of the Corporation after hearing the petitioner and a representative of the additional third respondent. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing the first respondent to hear the petitioner as well as a representative of the additional third respondent on Ext.R3(a) and take a final decision as to whether Ext.P2 stop memo should be confirmed. It is open to the parties to produce any relevant material during hearing. The parties can also cite any judicial precedents, which according, to them is binding and relevant. First respondent will hear the parties as directed above and pass orders at the earliest and at any rate within one month of receiving a copy of this judgment. Once orders are passed, the same will be communicated to the petitioner as well as to the additional third respondent. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.3970/08 2