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