IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13768 of 2008(L)
1. M/S.IDEA MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS LTD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE UDAYAMPEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. SRI.K.G.RAMADASAN,KEECHERIYIL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :13/06/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 13768 OF 2008 L
====================
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is a stop
memo issued by the respondent Panchayat in view of the apprehended
health hazards highlighted by the residents in the locality. This court had
occasion to deal with this very issue in the judgment reported in
Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat (2006
(4) KLT 695) . In view of this, I am not satisfied that the reason stated in
Ext.P3 should stand in the way of the petitioner constructing the tower in
terms of Ext.P1 permit that was granted by the respondent Panchayat.
Therefore, I quash Ext.P3 for that reason only.
2. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that there
are other larger issues which are to be considered by the Panchayat. He
submits that attempt has been made by the petitioner to construct the
tower outside the area covered by Ext.P1. If that be so, it is always open
to the 3rd respondent to point out this to the Panchayat and the Panchayat
can take action against the petitioner and this judgment will not stand in
the way.
WPC 13768/08
:2 :
3. Yet another point that is urged by the 3rd respondent is about
the pendency of a suit as OS 619/08 before the Munsiff’s Court,
Ernakulam, in which an order of injunction is also said to have been
passed by that court. He also points out that the very competence of the
Devaswom in granting permit to the petitioner to set up the tower is also a
matter to be decided. I clarify that I have not pronounced on the issues
arising for consideration in OS 619/08 nor on the competence of the 3rd
respondent to grant permission to the petitioner and these are issues
which I leave open to be raised and adjudicated in appropriate
proceedings, independent of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE.
Rp
