Wireless-Tt Info Services … vs The Cochin Corporation on 7 January, 2011

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 498 of 2011(J)


1. WIRELESS-TT INFO SERVICES LIMITED,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COCHIN CORPORATION, CORPORATION
                       ...       Respondent

2. COCHIN CORPORATION, ZONAL OFFICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR

 Dated :07/01/2011

 O R D E R
                           C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
                        ---------------------------------------
                          W.P(C)No.498 of 2011
                       ----------------------------------------
                         Dated 7th January, 2011

                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a company incorporated under the

Companies Act. The petitioner submitted an application for construction

of mobile tower. According to the petitioner, such an application was

submitted as early as on 18.2.2010. It is contended that, in terms of the

provisions under Rule 141 of the Kerala Building Rules, on receipt of such

an application the competent authority is bound to consider and pass

orders thereon within 30 days from the date of application. Alleging

failure on the part of the competent authority to pass orders in terms of

Rule 141(8) of the Kerala Building Rules the petitioner started the

erection work of the mobile tower. Thereupon, the first respondent

Corporation initiated proceedings under section 406 of the Kerala

Municipality Act (for short `the Act’). The petitioner has submitted Ext.P5

objection on receipt of notice under section 406 of the Act. In fact, in the

meanwhile, the first respondent has passed a final order under section

406 of the Act. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P4 final order

was passed without considering the objections raised by the petitioner

against the provisional order. The learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that Ext.P4 is an appealable order. Therefore, in case the

petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4, it will be open to the petitioner to resort

WP(C).No.498/2011 2

to the appellate remedy. At the same time, the grievance of the

petitioner is that the application submitted by him for grant of permit for

construction of mobile tower is still pending before the first respondent.

The learned counsel for the respondent, thereupon, submitted that the

application would be disposed of expeditiously.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on

both sides and considering the fact that the application submitted by

the petitioner for grant of permission to construct mobile tower dated

18.2.2010 is pending before the first respondent, without making any

observation as to the merits of the contentions raised in this writ

petition, it is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority

under the first respondent to consider the application dated 18.2.2010

and pass orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any

rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment. It is made clear that till such time no further

construction shall be made by the petitioner. It is also made clear that

it will be open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against Ext.P4, in

case the petitioner desires to do so, in accordance with the provisions

under the Act.

Sd/-

C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Judge

TKS
// True copy //