IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH APRIL 2009 / 4TH VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 12738 of 2009(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: ----------------------- 1. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O. KUNJUPILLAI, AGED 58 YEARS, SECRETARY, ACTION COUNCIL AGAINST THE INSTALLATION OF TATA INDICOM MOBILE TOWER IN PULIYOOR VANBCHI NORTH, IN THODIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, R/ AT PLAVILAYIL, PULIYOOR VANCHI NORTH, THAZHAVA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2. KUNJUMON, S/O. BHASKARAN, SREE SUBRAMANIALAYAM, PULIYOOR VANCHI NORTH, THAZHAVA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS : ----------------------- 1. THODIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THODIYOOR P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2. THODIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, THODIYOOR P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, NELLIMUKKU, KOLLAM. 4. M/S. WIRELESS T.T.INFO SERVICES LTD., SL PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM P.O., KOCHI. 5. KALAMAN, S/O. LATE BHASKARAN, KAVUMKADA VEEDU, PULIYOOR VANCHI NORTH, THAZAHAVA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALY. SMT. K.K. THULESY BHAI- R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12738 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the construction and establishment of mobile tower in Puliyoor Vanchi Area in Thodiyoor Grama Panchayath. The first petitioner claimed to be the Secretary of the Action Council formed to protest against the installation of Tata Indicom mobile tower in Puliyoor Vanchi Area of ward No.3 in Thodiyoor Grama Panchayath. The fourth respondent and the second petitioner are close residents. The fourth respondent alleged to have filed an application before the first respondent panchayath for building permit for the mobile tower. According to the petitioners, the people in the locality raised their objection against the said construction and installation of mobile tower. Ext.P1 is the copy of the objection filed before the first respondent. Now the grievance of the petitioners is that the first respondent is taking steps to grant permission in favour of the fourth respondent without considering the objection. W.P.(C) No.12738 of 2009 2 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case especially Ext.P1 objection, pending before the first respondent, I am not proposed to enter into the merits or demerits of the case. On the other hand, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to dispose of Ext.P1 objection. 3. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P1 objection after giving an opportunity of being heard to all the concerned, including respondents 3 to 5 and the petitioners and to dispose of the same as early as possible at any rate within two months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment before the respondents by the petitioners. V.K.MOHANAN JUDGE pac