M/S.Essar Telecom … vs The Alappuzha Municipality on 6 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
M/S.Essar Telecom … vs The Alappuzha Municipality on 6 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 3972 of 2008(W)


1. M/S.ESSAR TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE (P)LTD,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, MUNICIPAL

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

5. SRI.SAMEER, S/O.ABDULLA KUNJU,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :06/02/2008

 O R D E R
                             PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.

                      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                            W.P.(C)No.3972 of 2008

                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                 Dated this the 6th  day of February, 2008



                                  JUDGMENT

It appears to me that the petitioner, a mobile telephone

company, has a genuine grievance. The company was issued

with Ext.P1 building permit for the construction of a mobile tower.

Thereafter, the Municipal Engineer issued Ext.P2 to it alleging that

the construction of the tower is in violation of Rule 130. To Ext.P2

petitioner company submitted Ext.P3 wherein the allegation that

it is without obtaining permit under Rule 130 that the construction

is taken up has been denied. Grievance of the petitioner is that

though Ext.P3 was submitted, no decision has been taken after

considering Ext.P3.

2. It is noticed that though Ext.P2 has been issued by the

Municipal Engineer, it is the secretary of the Municipality who is

competent to take a final decision in the matter as to whether the

petitioner should not be allowed to carry out the construction on

the strength of Ext.P1 permit which is already issued. It is

submitted on behalf of the learned standing counsel for the

WPC.No.3972/08 2

Municipality that it is in the wake of some complaint submitted by

the 5th respondent that the Municipal Engineer issued Ext.P2

notice.

Under these circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition

directing the Secretary of the first respondent Municipality to take

up Ext.P3 immediately, hear the petitioner and also the 5th

respondent and take an early decision. While taking decision, due

regard will be given by the Secretary to Ext.P1 permit which is

seen validly issued in favour of the petitioner company. The

Secretary shall also have due regard to the judgment of the

Division Bench in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery

Grama Panchayat ( 2006(4)KLT 695). The Secretary will ensure

compliance of the above direction at the earliest and at any rate

within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. If the

decision of the Secretary comes to be in favour of the petitioner

company, respondents 3 and 4 will ensure that petitioner gets the

benefit of the order and is able to carry out the construction

without any hindrance or objection from respondent No.5 or

anybody else.

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE

JUDGE

sv.

WPC.No.3972/08 2

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *