IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3973 of 2008(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.ESSAR TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD 41/256, C-19, SECOND FLOOR, MATHER SQUARE, OPP. NORTH RAILWAY STATION, COCHIN 682018 REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE (SITE ACQUISITIONS AND ADMINISTRATION), MR.RAHUL DAS. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, PALLIKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT P.O.PALLIKKAL, KONDOTTY BLOCK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRURANGADI P.O., THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R2 ADV.SRI.MOHAMMED SHAFI, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.3973 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The first respondent Panchayat enters appearance through counsel and Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of second respondent. 2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Panchayat and also the learned Government Pleader. The grievance of the petitioner- a mobile telephone company is that even though Ext.P1 building permit was issued by the Panchayat, even before the construction work was taken up, Panchayat issued Ext.P2 stop memo on the ground that complaints have been received from the local public. According to the counsel for the petitioner any complaint that there will be health hazards for the local public cannot be accepted in view of the principles laid down in the judgment of the Division Bench in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat ( 2006(4)KLT 695). 3. Learned counsel for the Panchayat also submitted that generally the complaint of the local public is that energisation of WPC.No3973/08 2 the tower will cause health hazards to them. Since the issue is apparently covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in Reliance Infocom's case, I am of the view that writ petition itself can be disposed of directing the Panchayat to take an early decision in the matter in the light of the Division Bench judgment. Accordingly, the following directions are issued: The Panchayat will hear the petitioner and also a representative of the people who submitted complaint on 30/06/2007 and take a decision on the question of continuance or otherwise of Ext.P2. While taking decision, Panchayat will take note of the Division Bench judgment in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat ( 2006(4)KLT 695). Decision as directed will be taken by the Panchayat at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. If the decision to be taken by the Panchayat comes to be in favour of the petitioner, second respondent will ensure that the petitioner is able to carry out the construction. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No3973/08 2