IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 32799 of 2006(D)
1. TELECOM TOWER & INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. EDAPPAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :18/12/2006
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.32799 of 2006
----------------------------------
Dated this 18th day of December, 2006
JUDGMENT
A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
the respondent Panchayat. Along with the counter affidavit,
Ext.R1(a) a copy of the mass complaint filed by the inhabitants of
the locality is produced. Ext.R1(c) produced along with the
counter affidavit is a letter from the District Collector informing
the Panchayat that since the tower is proposed to be constructed
in thickly populated area and since one residential building is
situated in close proximity to the proposed site permission
shall not be issued to the petitioner.
2. Heard both sides. Sri.Santhosh Mathew the learned
counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to Ext.P3
judgment of this court and also the judgment of the Division
Bench in Reliance Infocomm v. Chemancherry Grama
Panchayat ( 2006 (4) KLT 695) . Counsel submitted that the
District Collector in Ext.R1 (e) was concerned more about the
working of diesel generator. The question of permission to
operate the generator does not arise at this stage. The same
question will arise only later. At present the Panchayat need
WPC No.32799/2006 2
be concerned about the permission for constructing the tower
only. Sri.Millu Dandapani, the learned counsel for the Panchayat
also would refer to the Collector’s order and Ext.R1(a) and R1
(b). He submitted that the existence of residential buildings in
close proximity to the proposed site and also the existence of
public school are genuine reasons for mass upraisal against
the proposed tower. It may be possible to relocate the tower in
the same plot itself so that the same will be as away as possible
from the school and the nearest residential building.
3. Having considered the rival submissions in the light of
the principles laid down by the Division Bench and also in Ext.P3
judgment, I am of the view that the Panchayat was not justified
in relying on Ext.R1 (a) complaint for turning down the
petitioner’s request for permit for construction. Ext.P1 order
accordingly, will stand quashed and there will be a direction to
the Panchayat to reconsider the petitioner’s application for
permit for construction of the tower in the light of the principles
laid down by Ext.P3 judgment and also the judgment of the
Division Bench. The Panchayat will also explore possibility of
the actual site of the proposed tower being relocated on the
very same plot, so that the tower will be as away from as
WPC No.32799/2006 3
possible from the nearest residential house and the public
school. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment
before the Panchayat and the Panchayat will take a fresh
decision as directed above at the earliest and at any rate within
two weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner
shall co-operate with the Panchayat in the matter by obliging
to all reasonable suggestions made by the Panchayat regarding
relocation on the same plot.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Judge
dpk