IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 13768 of 2008(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M/S.IDEA MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS LTD, SECOND FLOOR,MERCY ESTATE,RAVIPURAM, COCHIN-682 015,REP.BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, SRI.RAMACHANDRAN C. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE UDAYAMPEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, UDAYAMPEROOR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REP.BY TIS SECRETARY. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UDAYAMPEROOR POLICE STATION,UDYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. SRI.K.G.RAMADASAN,KEECHERIYIL HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR,NADAKKAVU,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL FOR R3 SMT.N.RENJINEE DEVI FOR R3 SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R1 SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 13768 OF 2008 L ==================== Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is a stop memo issued by the respondent Panchayat in view of the apprehended health hazards highlighted by the residents in the locality. This court had occasion to deal with this very issue in the judgment reported in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat (2006 (4) KLT 695) . In view of this, I am not satisfied that the reason stated in Ext.P3 should stand in the way of the petitioner constructing the tower in terms of Ext.P1 permit that was granted by the respondent Panchayat. Therefore, I quash Ext.P3 for that reason only. 2. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that there are other larger issues which are to be considered by the Panchayat. He submits that attempt has been made by the petitioner to construct the tower outside the area covered by Ext.P1. If that be so, it is always open to the 3rd respondent to point out this to the Panchayat and the Panchayat can take action against the petitioner and this judgment will not stand in the way. WPC 13768/08 :2 : 3. Yet another point that is urged by the 3rd respondent is about the pendency of a suit as OS 619/08 before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, in which an order of injunction is also said to have been passed by that court. He also points out that the very competence of the Devaswom in granting permit to the petitioner to set up the tower is also a matter to be decided. I clarify that I have not pronounced on the issues arising for consideration in OS 619/08 nor on the competence of the 3rd respondent to grant permission to the petitioner and these are issues which I leave open to be raised and adjudicated in appropriate proceedings, independent of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp