Muraleedharan vs Thodiyoor Grama Panchayath on 24 April, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 12738 of 2009(J)


1. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O. KUNJUPILLAI,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. KUNJUMON, S/O. BHASKARAN,

                        Vs



1. THODIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THODIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE,

3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,

4. M/S. WIRELESS T.T.INFO SERVICES LTD.,

5. KALAMAN, S/O. LATE BHASKARAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN

 Dated :24/04/2009

 O R D E R
                        V.K.MOHANAN, J.
                   ---------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C) No.12738 OF 2009
                   ---------------------------------------
              Dated this the 24th day of April, 2009


                            JUDGMENT

This writ petition is preferred against the construction

and establishment of mobile tower in Puliyoor Vanchi Area in

Thodiyoor Grama Panchayath. The first petitioner claimed to

be the Secretary of the Action Council formed to protest

against the installation of Tata Indicom mobile tower in

Puliyoor Vanchi Area of ward No.3 in Thodiyoor Grama

Panchayath. The fourth respondent and the second petitioner

are close residents. The fourth respondent alleged to have

filed an application before the first respondent panchayath for

building permit for the mobile tower. According to the

petitioners, the people in the locality raised their objection

against the said construction and installation of mobile tower.

Ext.P1 is the copy of the objection filed before the first

respondent. Now the grievance of the petitioners is that the

first respondent is taking steps to grant permission in favour

of the fourth respondent without considering the objection.

W.P.(C) No.12738 of 2009
2

2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances

involved in the case especially Ext.P1 objection, pending

before the first respondent, I am not proposed to enter into the

merits or demerits of the case. On the other hand, I am

inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to

dispose of Ext.P1 objection.

3. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing

the respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P1 objection after

giving an opportunity of being heard to all the concerned,

including respondents 3 to 5 and the petitioners and to dispose

of the same as early as possible at any rate within two months

from the date of production of a copy of the judgment before

the respondents by the petitioners.

V.K.MOHANAN
JUDGE

pac