IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 11152 of 2011(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.D.JOSEPH, AGED 59 YEARS, EDITOR “ZEEZAR NEWS”, PANAGHADAN HOUSE TIRUR, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN- 680 531. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MULAKUNNATHUKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MULAKUNNATHUKAVU ,THRISSUR DT., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN- 679 335. 2. THE SECRETARY, MULAKUNNATHUKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MULAKUNNATHUKAVU ,THRISSUR DT., PIN- 679 335. 3. M/S INDIA TELECOM INFRA LIMITED, I .NO.42/1327 (J) 2ND FLOOR, V.S.ARCADE, POWER HOUSE ROAD, OPPOSITE POWER HOUSE, COCHIN, PIN-682 018. 4. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REP. BY ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICE, PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR, PIN- 680 001. R1 & R2 BY SRI. P.S. SATHISAN, S.C, R4 BY SRI. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.11152 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition has been filed mainly challenging Ext.P7 building permit issued by the second respondent in the name of the third respondent. The further prayer is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 not to grant permission to erect/put up mobile base station without safeguarding the health of the petitioner and the local residents and without preventing environmental degradation caused by the mobile base stations and such other benefits. I do not think that this Court should consider the correctness of Ext.P7 in this proceedings. Admittedly, in view of Rule 160 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (for short 'the Rules') an appeal would lie against Ext.P7 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Considering the fact that the petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.5756/2011 and now challenging Ext.P7 in this Writ Petition, I am of the view that the petitioner shall be given liberty to challenge Ext.P7 in appeal. Therefore, the petitioner is granted liberty to W.P.(C) NO.11152/2011 2 prefer an appeal against Ext.P7 in terms of Rule 160 of the Rules. In case the petitioner prefers an appeal within two weeks from today, the same shall be construed as an appeal preferred within the time limit and the Tribunal shall consider the same as an appeal preferred within the stipulated time and proceed to consider it, on merits. Subject to the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation with respect to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc //true copy// P.A. to Judge W.P.(C) NO.11152/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.11152/2011 4