IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13940 of 2011(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- TOWER VISION INDIA (P) LIMITED, MUSCAT TOWERS, IST 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. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 001. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 518. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 520. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 520. 5. GIREESH, S/O.SOMARAJAN, AGED ABOUT 30, OTTAPLAVILAYIL, AIVARKALA PADINJATTAKARA NORTH, PUTHANAMBALAM.P.O., PIN-691 553. 6. MOHANAN, S/O.OMANA, AGED ABOUT 35, PALATHITTA HOUSE, AIVARKALA PADINJATTAKARA NORTH, PUTHANAMBALAM.P.O., PIN-691 553. W.P.(C). NO.13940/2011-N: 7. SREERAJ (UNNI), S/O.SREENIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 28, CHITTAKATTU THEKKATHIL, AIVARKALA PADINJATTAKARA NORTH, PUTHANAMBALAM.P.O., PIN-691 553. 8. RANJITH, S/O.RAJAN, AGED 26, KAYAMKUNNIL (RANJITH BHAVANAM), AIVARKALA PADINJATTAKARA NORTH, PUTHANAMBALAM.P.O., PIN-691 553. 9. KUNNATHOOR PANCHAYAT, KUNNATHOOR EAST.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 540, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA, R5 TO R8 BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR), SRI.P.SREEKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.13940/2011-N: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DTD. 28/04/2011 ISSUED BY THE KUNNATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.4. DTD. 06/05/2011. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 14/05/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 13940 of 2011-N ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 4 to afford protection to the petitioner for the construction of a telecommunication tower in accordance with Ext.P1 building permit issued by the 9th respondent against any illegal objection/ obstruction of respondents 5 to 8. 2. Notice was ordered to the respondents. Respondents 5 to 8 have entered appearance. The learned counsel for respondents 5 to 8 submits that respondents 5 to 8 have no objection against the undertaking of the construction and operation of the telecommunication tower. For the 9th respondent, counsel appears. The learned counsel submits that the 9th respondent has no objection. 3. Ext.P1 is a regular permit. There is no contention for any one that the permit is not valid. Our attention has been drawn to the decisions in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd., v. C.I. of Police [2010 (2) KLT 762) (FB)] and Essar W.P.(C) No. 13940 of 2011 -: 2 :- Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KHC 171). We are satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to undertake the construction subject, of course, to the observations and conditions in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KHC 171). 4. In the absence of objections from any one and in the light of the precedents referred above, we are satisfied that this writ petition can be allowed. 5. In the result: (a) This writ petition is allowed. (b) Respondents 1 to 4 are directed to afford adequate and sufficient police protection to the petitioner to construct, instal and operate the mobile tower in accordance with Ext.P1 building permit issued by the 9th respondent against any objection/ obstruction that may be raised by respondents 5 to 8. (c) Needless to say that this judgment shall be subject to the observations and conditions in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KHC 171). Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge