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. 24044 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- TOWER VISION INDIA (P) LIMITED, MUSCAT TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, S.A.ROAD, KADAVANTHRA- 682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (LEGAL) MR.PRAMOD JAIJI. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPUZHA, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT-688001. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHERTHALA, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARARIKULAM CIRCLE OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688549. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARARIKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688549. 6. MR.SUDHEESH(AKKU), SUDHEESH BHAVANAM, MAYITHARA MARKET PO, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 7. PUSHPAKARNAN, MATTATHIL VEEDU, MAYITHARA MARKET PO, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 8. MR.SIVADAS(SIVAN), MATTATHIL, SUDHEESH BHAVANAM, MAYITHARA MARKET PO, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., 9. SHAJI, MATTATHIL VEEDU,MAYITHARA MARKET PO, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., 10. KANJIKUZHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHERTHALA, TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS. R6 TO R9 BY ADV. SRI.T.JAYAKRISHNAN R10 BY ADV SRI.V.SATHEESH SRI.A.KRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P (C) No.24044/2010 -3- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 03-07-2010 ISSUED BY THE VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION AND RECEIPTS DATED 23-07-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 04-05-2010 IN W.P (C) No.14312/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R6(a) : COPY OF THE NEWS PUBLISHED IN KERALA MAUMUDI DAILY DATED 08- 07-2010. EXT.R10(a) : COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 19-07-2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE AMG R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.24044 of 2010-E ***************************** 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 – all police officials under the 1st respondent State, to afford police protection to them against illegal obstruction that is caused by respondents 6 to 9 when the petitioner undertakes the construction of a telecommunication tower in accordance with Ext.P1 permit issued by the 10th respondent. 2. All respondents have been served. Only the 6th and 10th respondents had entered appearance and filed counter affidavit. There is no representation for the 6th and 10th respondents when the matter came up for hearing. 3. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 permit is valid and remains in force. Respondents 6 to 9 have no legal right to raise any objection against the construction of the tower. They are raising unjustifiable objections and obstructions. The objection W.P(c) No.24044 of 2010 2 that the tower is likely to cause health hazards is not legally tenable. There is no Kavu as alleged in the counter affidavit at the site. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that police protection may be afforded to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objections raised by the 6th respondent are not tenable or valid. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on 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]. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to an order for police protection as prayed for. 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 10th respondent against obstruction if any raised by respondents 6 to 9; W.P(c) No.24044 of 2010 3 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/