IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 160 of 2011(T) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ TOWER VISION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUSCAT TOWERS,IST FLOOR, S.A.ROAD, KADAVANTHRA 682 020,REP.BY ITS MANGER(LEGAL)MR.PRAMOD JAIJI. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN- 695 001 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.PIN-680 609 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA,THRISSUR DISTRICT.PIN-680 121 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA CIRCLE OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680 121 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTOOR POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DISTRICT.PIN-680 702 6. JAYAN,S/O.GOVINDAN,KUTTIKKATTIL HOUSE, PANIKKAR MOOLA, KATTOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680 702 7. PRABHAKARAN,S/O.NARAYANAN ASARI,THIYATHU PARAMBIL HOUSE, PANIKKAR MOOLA, KATTOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.680 702 -2- WP(C)NO.160/2011 8. THE SECRETARY, KATTOOR PANCHAYAT, KATTOOR,THRISSUR DISTRICT.PIN-680 702 R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS R6 & R7 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN R8 BY ADV. SRI.N.NARAYANAN NAIR SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SRI.C.U.SANGEETH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts -3- WP(C)NO.160/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 1/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE KATTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. P2 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 13/12/2010. P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17/12/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5. P4 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 13/8/2010 IN WP(C)NO.24045/2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R6(A) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.34995/2007 DATED 12/03/2008. R6(B) COPY OF THE MASS PETITION FILED BY THIS RESPONDENT AND OTHERS DATED 04/10/07. R6(C) COPY OF THE INTERNATIONALLY ESTABLISHED PROTECTION CODE REGARDING THE SAFETY OF INSTALLING MOBILE TELEPHONE TOWER IS MENTIONED IN “CELLULAR ALERT” CANADA. R6(D) COPY OF THE MASS PETITION FILED BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT DATED 13/12/2010. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.160 of 2011-T ***************************** Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 2 to 5 – police officials under the 1st respondent State, to afford protection to the petitioner against illegal obstruction raised by respondents 6 and 7 in the construction of a mobile tower undertaken by the petitioner in accordance with Ext.P1 permit issued by the 8th respondent panchayat. 2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 permit is a regular permit issued by the panchayat. No one has so far raised any challenge against Ext.P1. Respondents 6 and 7, in these circumstances, have no right to object or cause obstruction to the construction. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this context places reliance on the decisions in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. C.I of Police [2010 (2) KLT 762] and Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2011 (2) KHC 171]. 3. The 8th respondent has entered appearance through a counsel. The 8th respondent raises no objection against the W.P(c) No.160/11 2 prayer in this petition. The 6th and 7th respondents have been served. A counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent raises the general and sweeping objection that construction of the tower would cause health hazards to the members of the local public. He also raises a contention against the validity of Ext.P1 permit. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent very particularly raises a contention that Ext.P1 permit has been issued by the 8th respondent panchayat on 01.12.2010 contrary to the specific directions issued by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ext.R6(a) judgment dated 12.03.2008. 4. We do note that Ext.P1 permit is not challenged by the 6th respondent, who was the petitioner in Ext.R6(a) nor has the 6th respondent so far admittedly raised any grievance before the court which passed Ext.R6(a) judgment that the directions therein have been violated. The fact hence remains that Ext.P1 is valid and enforcible, the 6th respondent having not attempted to take any action against the panchayat to assail Ext.P1 even after coming to know of it. Objections regarding validity of Ext.P1 permit though raised before this Court cannot stand scrutiny in the absence of challenge. In the light of the decision in the two W.P(c) No.160/11 3 precedents referred above, the objection raised that the construction and installation of the mobile tower would cause health hazards cannot also be accepted. 5. It follows therefore that no valid objection has been raised. We are satisfied that this petition can be allowed and appropriate directions can be issued. 6. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; b) Respondents 2 to 5 are directed to afford protection to the petitioner to undertake the construction of a mobile tower strictly in accordance with Ext.P1 permit issued by the 8th respondent against any obstruction caused by respondents 6 and 7; c) Needless to say, the direction hereby issued shall be subject to all observations and conditions in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2011 (2) KHC 171]. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/