IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27914 of 2010(L)
1. INDUS TOWERS LTD.CIRCLE OFFICE AT
... Petitioner
2. SHAJI MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW,
Vs
1. THRIKKOVILVATTOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
... Respondent
2. SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :25/01/2011
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
------------------------
WP(C) No.27914 of 2010
------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
The first petitioner is a company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956. The 2nd petitioner is a contractor for
erecting mobile tower. Feeling aggrieved by the stop memo
issued by the 2nd respondent requiring the petitioners to stop
the construction of the mobile tower the petitioners have
preferred appeal No.477/10 before the Tribunal for Local Self
Government Institutions. Exhibit P12 is the appeal preferred
before the Tribunal. Exhibit P13 is the counter affidavit filed
by the 2nd respondent in the said appellate proceedings. As per
Exhibit P14, taking note of the stand of the respondents that
they have not actually issued any stop memo, Exhibit P12
appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. This writ petition has
been filed challenging Exhibit P14 order of the Tribunal for
Local Self Government Institutions.
2. Respondents 1 and 2 have jointly filed a counter
affidavit in this writ petition. Along with the same, they have
produced Exhibit R1(a), the stop memo in question, issued
WP(C) No.27914 of 2010
2
requiring the petitioners to stop the construction. The learned
counsel appearing for the respondent brought my attention the
purpose of said stop memo viz., to facilitate a talk with the
agitating public over the issue of erection of mobile tower in
the locality. In other words, evidently, the stop memo has been
issued not because of any flaw or lapse on the part of the
petitioners to comply with the statutory requirements in the
matter of construction of mobile tower. The learned counsel
also brought my notice to paragraph 8 of the written statement
filed before the tribunal that made the tribunal to dismiss the
appeal and it reads thus:
“It is submitted that the 1st respondent has neither interfered
nor made any decision in the matter so far. The 2nd
respondent has not issued any stop memo in the matter as
alleged in the appeal. The Appellants have approached this
Honorable Authority with a view to overcome the protest
raised by the public. The Panchayath has arranged the public
meeting with a view to settle the issue and to find out a
solution in the matter as per the guidelines issued by the
Government in the matter”.
In this case, as noticed herein before, the basis of Exhibit R1(a)
stop memo is not attribution of violation of any of the
provisions under the Panchayath Raj Act or any other relevant
WP(C) No.27914 of 2010
3
enactments as is from Exhibit R1(a) itself as also from the
counter affidavit filed in this writ petition and the written
statement filed before the Tribunal. In short, there was no
appellable cause of action warranting interference and it was in
the circumstances that Exhibit P14 was passed by the Tribunal.
In the said circumstance, I do not find any perverseness or
illegality in Exhibit P14 that calls for. The learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that a public meeting was already
convened pursuant to Exhibit R1(a). Be that as it may,
evidently, Exhibit R1(a), the counter affidavit filed in this writ
petition as also the written statement filed before the Tribunal
reveal no real objection from the part of the respondent
Panchayath against the construction attributing any violation of
the statutory requirements or conditions of permit. Therefore,
recording the said factual position obtained from the pleadings
made on behalf of the respondent this writ petition is closed.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE.
rkc
