IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1662 of 2008(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.ESSAR TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD., 41/256, C-19, SECOND FLOOR, MATHER SQUARE, OPP.NORTH RAILWAY STATION, COCHIN-682 018, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE (SITE ACQUISITIONS & ADMINISTRATION) MR.RAHUL DAS. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KULASEKHARAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH (SPL.GRADE), ADINAD NORTH P.O., PIN-690 542, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM Additional respondents impleaded vide order dated 30-01-08 in I.A.No.1578/08 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.C.NO.1662/08 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.32/2007-08 DTD. 18-09-2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PERMIT FEE RECEIPT NO.69 DTD. 18-9-07 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.K4 35/07-08 DTD. 11/1/08 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. /True Copy/ PA to Judge PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.1622 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT First respondent Panchayat has not entered appearance inspite of notice. I have heard the submission of Sri.Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader who has taken notice on behalf of police officers who are additional respondents 2 and 3. Under challenge is Ext.P3 order of the Panchayat by which the Panchayat directs the petitioner company to stop the construction of the mobile tower, which was earlier permitted by the Panchayat under Ext.P1, in the wake of complaints by the general public. This court passed an interim order permitting the petitioner to carry on the construction and this court has directed the police officers to render assistance to the petitioner for carrying out that interim order. It is not clear from the writ petition or from Ext.P3 as to what exactly was the ground raised by the general public. Probably the ground is that the people apprehend that the energisation of the tower will cause health WPC.No.1662/08 2 hazards to them. Whatever be the ground of complaint, it is only appropriate that the Panchayat takes a decision on the compliant referred to in Ext.P3 with notice to the petitioner company. Therefore I dispose of the writ petition directing the Panchayat to take a final decision on the complaint referred to in Ext.P3 after hearing the petitioner company and a representative of the people who submitted the complaint. A decision as directed above shall be taken by the Panchayat at the earliest and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receiving a copy of this judgment. While taking decision, Panchayat will have due regard to the judgment of the Division Bench in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat ( 2006(4) KLT 695) and any other relevant materials which may be produced by any of the parties herein. Energisation of the tower shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the Panchayat. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.1662/08 2