Loading...

Indus Towers Ltd.Circle Office At vs Thrikkovilvattom Grama … on 25 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
Indus Towers Ltd.Circle Office At vs Thrikkovilvattom Grama … on 25 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information