IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 27803 of 2010(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- DILEEP.M.R., S/O. RAMAN, AGED 38 YEARS, MUTTATHIL HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM.P.O., RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KURUPPAMPADY-683545. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BYJU KURIAKOSE SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN SRI.E.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, RAYAMANGALAM.P.O., KURUPPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683545 REPRESENTD BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. M/S. INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, VANKARATH TOWERS, NH BYPASS, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-682 024. 3. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 4. MR. JIJU.T.K., THATTAMPURAM HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM.P.O., KURUPPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM DIST.683 545 R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.K.KARNIS R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.27803/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION DATED 25/2/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2 COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE DATED 22/2/2010. P3 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.A3-410/2010 DATED 16/3/2010. P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/5/2010 IN APPEAL NO.356/2010 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(A) COPY OF THE PROPER APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DATED 8/1/2010. R2(B) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 8/1/2010 SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT. R2(C) COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 23/2/2006. R2(D) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/8/2010 ISSUING THE PERMIT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.27803 OF 2010 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and for other incidental reliefs: 2. The 2nd respondent applied for permission to erect a telecommunication tower on 11/1/2011. The Secretary of the Panchayat issued Ext.P3 order dated 16/3/2010 rejecting the said application stating that the local people lodged a complaint against the erection of telecommunication tower. The 2nd respondent herein, who has submitted the application for permit, preferred an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal passed Ext.P4 order allowing the appeal filed by the 2nd respondent. 3. The application for permission to erect the telecommunication tower was admittedly received by the -2- W.P.(C).No.27803/2010 Panchayat on 11/1/2010. Ext.P3 order was passed on 16/3/2010. The only reason stated in the impugned order rejecting the application for permit to construct a telecommunication tower is that complaint against the construction was filed by certain persons and that they were against the construction. The Tribunal observed that apparently the impugned order was passed not on the basis of any sustainable grounds as specified in Section 235 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and that mere complaint or objection of some persons against the construction is not a sustainable reason for refusing permit. For the aforesaid reasons the Tribunal held that the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. The Tribunal also noticed the fact that the Secretary of the Panchayat failed to pass orders within the period of 30 days from the receipt of the application as specified by Rule 141(8) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and hence the appellant has become entitled to the benefits of the last proviso to Rule 143 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. Therefore, the Tribunal set -3- W.P.(C).No.27803/2010 aside the order dated 16/3/2010 of the Panchayat and declared that the appellant has become entitled to the benefit of the last proviso to Rule 143 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules with respect to the application for permit submitted by the appellant on 11/1/2010. 3. Petitioner is a resident of the lst-respondent Panchayat. He challenges Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal. Panchayat is not aggrieved by the decision taken by the Tribunal. The application for permit to construct the telecommunication tower was received by the Panchayat on 11/1/2010. Admittedly, no order has been passed within the statutory period. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the appellant has become entitled to the benefit to the last proviso to Rule 143 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. The reason stated by the Tribunal for setting aside Ext.P3 order is also sustainable on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal also held that the impugned order was passed by the Panchayat not on the basis of any sustainable -4- W.P.(C).No.27803/2010 grounds as specified in Section 235 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The application was rejected solely because some persons in the locality objected to the grant of permit. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order under challenge in this writ petition. Writ Petition fails and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.