IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 11725 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- BHARTI INFRATEL LTD., FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHARTI TELE-VENTURES LIMITED, S.L. AVENUE, N.H. BYPASS, KUNDANNUR, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD LEGAL SRI.P.JAYABAL MENON. BY ADVS. MR.SANTHOSH MATHEW, MR.SATHISH NINAN. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- KEEZHERIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KEEZHERIYOOR, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.DEVIDAS.U.K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.11725 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard. The petitioner has a tele-communication tower. That construction was the subject of WP(C)31356 of 2007. The judgment rendered in that writ petition was reviewed as per order on R.P.663 of 2008, and it is ordered in WP(C)31356 of 2007 that the said order on RP will not stand in the way of any application for regularisation filed by the petitioner. In the midst of that, Ext.P10 was issued apparently relying on the fact situation available as a result of the judgment in WP(C)31356 of 2007, which was later reviewed as noticed above. Resultantly, Ext.P10 also needs to be cancelled paving way to the situation of the proceedings that led to Ext.P10. Therefore, without expressing anything on merits, Ext.P10 is vacated and it is ordered that the request of the petitioner placed before the Grama Panchayat(Ext.P9) would be reconsidered after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Let a final decision follow, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of Wpc 11725/2008 2 a copy of this judgment. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/4/8