IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22468 of 2008(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S.INDIA TELECOM INFRA LTD., MEENA MADHAVAM OPP.BHAVANS VIDYA MANDIR. DESHABHIMANI ROAD, ELAMAKKARA PO., ERNAKULAM-26, REP. BY ITS CIRCLE HEAD SRI.SUNIL MENON. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENT: --------------------- CHEMMARUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT(SPL. GRADE) PANAYARA PO., SREENIVASAPURAM, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT , PIN-695 145, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN SRI.R.SURESH SMT.V.RENJU SRI.P.ANIYAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).22468/2008-Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 13/05/2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.40/06-A1 DATED 23/06/2008 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R(a): COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 29/04/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R(b): COPY OF CONSENT GIVEN BY THE LAND OWNER DATED 29/04/2008. EXT.R(c): COPY OF LICENCE DEED DATED 28/04/2008. EXT.R(d): COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.IV(14) DATED 14/05/2008. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 22468 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 11, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is a communication issued by the respondent Panchayat declining a licence sought for by the petitioner for the installation of a mobile telecommunication tower. 2. Admittedly, Ext.R(a) application has been received from the petitioner. Taking note of the complaints received from the residents of the area, by Ext.R(d), the Panchayat resolved not to grant licence. It is pursuant to Ext.R(d) of 14.5.2008, the Panchayat had issued Ext.P2 dated 23.6.2008. 3. The only reason stated in Ext.R(d) and Ext.P2 is the complaints received by the Panchayat from the neighbouring residents. If an application has been properly made by the petitioner in compliance with the statutory requirements, it is immaterial whether the WP(C) 22468/08 2 residents of the area have raised objections against the installation of the tower. So long as the law permits the installation of a tower and the application is otherwise in order, ignoring the objections, if any received, the Panchayat is bound to consider the application on merits. In this case, it is seen that simply accepting the objections raised by the neighbouring residents, licence has been declined to the petitioner by Ext.R(d) and Ext.P2. The stand taken by the Panchayat in Ext.P2 cannot be upheld and I quash the same. The Panchayat is directed to consider the application made by the petitioner and pass orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-