IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1929 of 2011(M)
1. M/S.IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. VAZHAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :28/01/2011
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 1929 OF 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition has been filed mainly challenging
Ext.P5 stop memo issued by the first respondent. As per
Ext.P1, sanction was accorded to the petitioner for laying
Optical Fibre Cable for a distance of 150 meters. Based on
the same, Ext.P2 Memorandum of Understanding has been
executed between the petitioner and the second respondent
Panchayath. A perusal of Ext.P5 would suggest that the same
was issued under the presentiment that the petitioner had
been doing something impermissible in terms of Ext.P2. In
fact, it is evident therefrom that the complaints and
objections of the people of the locality have formed the basis
for Ext.P5. When this matter is taken up for consideration
today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that as per Exts.P1 and P2, laying of Optical Fibre
Cable alone is permitted and that the petitioner has been
indulging only in the said permissible activity in terms of Exts.
WPC.1929/2011
: 2 :
P1 and P2. It is further submitted that erection of Mobile
Tower or any other construction other than the activities
permissible under Exts.P1 and P2 would be undertaken only
after getting requisite permission from the competent
authorities. It is recorded. The learned Standing Counsel
for the first respondent Panchayath did not dispute the right
of the petitioner to undertake the activities permissible in
terms of Exts.P1 and P2 and submitted that Ext.P5 stop
memo intends only to interdict impermissible activities in
terms of Exts.P1 and P2. Thus, it is obvious that as long as
the petitioner continues activities strictly in terms of the
conditions in Exts.P1 and P2 there cannot be any legal
impediment for such continuation in the said circumstances.
In view of the said rival submissions I am of the view that in
the light of Exts.P1 and P2, there is no further impediments
for the petitioner to go on with lawful activities in terms of
Exts.P1 and P2. As long as the petitioner is indulging only
in activities permitted in terms of Exts.P1 and P2, Ext.P5
memo shall not stand in the way of continuing with the
work permitted in terms of Exts.P1 and P2. With the above
WPC.1929/2011
: 3 :
observation, this writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
jma
//true copy//
P.A to Judge