IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 15450 of 2006(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S. TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REG.OFFICE AT JEEVAN BHARATH, TOWER-1, 10TH FLOOR, 124, CONNAUGHT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI-110 001, AND KERALA CIRCLE OFFICE AT S.L.PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025, REP.BY ITS SENIONER EXECUTIVE, (OPERATION SUPPORT). BY ADV. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE (SR.), SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. OORAKAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OORAKAM MELMURI, MALAPPURAM-676 519, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R2, ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR FOR R1. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.15450/2006-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DTD. 07/07/2005 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 09/09/2005 ALONG WITH DECISION DTD. 08/09/2005. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30/11/2005 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT. INSTITUTIONS, TRIVANDRUM IN APPEAL NO. 919/05. EXT.P.4; COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 05/04/2006 IN I.A. NO. 79/2006 IN O.S. NO. 9/2006 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 12/04/06 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE R.1. ALONG WITH THE DECISION NO.1. DTD. 07/04/06. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.15450 of 2006 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner approached this court aggrieved by Ext.P5 communication issued by the Panchayat wherein the petitioner has been asked to stop the functioning of a mobile tower. One of the contentions taken by the petitioner is that the same is passed without notice to the petitioner. It is further submitted that in view of the Bench decision of this court in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemmanchery Grama Panchayat, 2006 (4) KLT 695 the matter requires fresh consideration. There is no counter affidavit. Therefore, Ext.P5 is quashed without prejudice to the liberty to the first respondent to initiate fresh proceedings, if required, with notice to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------- W.P(C).No.15450 of 2006 ----------------------------------- JUDGMENT 11th July, 2008