IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22644 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. INDUS TOWERS LTD., CIRCLE OFFICE AT: VANKARATH TOWERS, 8TH FLOOR, NH-47, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-24, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD-LEGAL, PREMAKRISHNAN NAIR. 2. SHIBU MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, PALATHARA HOUSE, THURUTHY.P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. (PARTNER, PALATHARA CONSTRUCTIONS, CHANGANACHERRY) BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE S.I.OF POLICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.676101 2. THE C.I.OF POLICE, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.676101 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM.676505 4. THALAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THALAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, B.P.ANGADI, THALAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.676504 5. C.SUKUMARAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, CHERIYAMUDATHU HOUSE, MANGATIRI.P.O., THALAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.676108 6. C.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, CHERIYAMUDATHU HOUSE, MANGATIRI.P.O., THALAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.67108 7. SABU, S/O.VELU, CHERIYAMUDATHU HOUSE, MANGATIRI.P.O., THALAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.676108 8. SREEKANTH, S/O.SUKUMARAN, CHERIYAMUDATHU HOUSE, MANGATIRI.P.O., THALAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.676108 9. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001 10. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT, DEPARTMENT OF TELE COMMUNICATIONS, SANCHAR BHAVAN, 20, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA FOR R10 SRI.K.ANAND FOR R4 SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF FOR R5-8 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPIN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.22644/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND HARYANA. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND HARYANA. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO.177/2008 DATED 10/1/2008 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS & IT, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE FRESH CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION CONSEQUENT UPON CHANGE OF NAME ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND HARYANA. EXT.P4(A): TYPED COPY OF EXT.P4. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SEND BY THE DIRECTOR (CS-III) OF THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS & IT DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. EXT.P6: COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT NO.A2.5018/11 DATED 8/7/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCYHAYAT TO FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRRESENTATION DATED 8/8/2011. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 8/8/2011. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE STATEMENT PREPARED AND SIGNED BY C.SAJEESH. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.22644 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT C.K.Abdul Rehim, J. The first petitioner is a company providing infrastructure facilities for Telecom service providers. The 2nd petitioner is a contractor who had undertaken contract for construction of a mobile tower for the first petitioner. The petitioners are erecting a mobile tower (base transceiver station) in a property comprised in Survey No.344/6 of Thalakkad Village, Tirur Taluk, Malappraum District. The construction is done on the basis of Ext.P6 Building Permit obtained from the local authority, the Thalakkad Grama Panchayat. 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents 5 to 8 and their men are creating threat and obstructions to the petitioners and their workers. It is stated that such obstructions are caused on the basis of a mistaken apprehension that the establishment of base transceiver station will cause health hazards to the neighbouring residents. Even though the petitioners have approached respondents 1 and 2 through WPC.No.22644/2011 2 Ext.P7 complaint, no effective steps are taken to remove such obstructions and to afford protection for the construction of the mobile tower. This writ petition is filed under the above mentioned circumstances seeking directions for affording police protection. 3. Sri.K.K.Mohammed Ravuf, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 8, raised contention that the petitioners are not entitled to pursue the construction on the basis of Ext.P6 permit, because the owner of the land had already withdrawn the consent granted. The contention raised in this regard was denied by Sri. V.Philip Mathews, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Under such circumstances, we directed the petitioners to cause personal appearance of the land owner. The land owner Mr.Sajeesh appeared in person. He conceded that he had given the consent for establishment of the mobile tower and the consent is still valid. He denied the allegation that the consent was withdrawn. The petitioners have produced Ext.P10 letter issued by the said Mr.Sajeesh, stating that he had given consent for construction of mobile tower and he has no objection in the petitioners pursuing the work. WPC.No.22644/2011 3 4. Apprehension expressed by respondents 5 to 8 with respect to causing of health hazards due to the functioning of the base transceiver station, could not be entertained since the issue now stands covered through a Division Bench of this court in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KLT 516). As long as the Building Permit remains valid in force and the petitioners are constructing the tower in accordance with the terms of such permit, the respondents 5 to 8 or anybody else have no manner of right to create any physical obstructions to the erection of the mobile tower. Under the above mentioned circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to take effective steps if any physical obstruction is reported with respect to construction of the mobile tower. Respondents 1 and 2 should take effective steps to avert such obstructions if any caused and to afford protection for completing construction of the mobile tower. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk WPC.No.22644/2011 4