Kerala High Court
M/S.Tower Vision India Private ... vs Pinarayi Grama Panchayat on 27 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 5TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 14142 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
M/S.TOWER VISION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
BUILDING NO. 32/1663 B2, 2ND FLOOR, BCG ESTATE,
NH-BYPASS ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P.O. COCHIN 682 025
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL, RASHY S .INDRAN,
AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.V. SURENDRAN, RESIDING AT 2ND
FLOOR VATTAMALA ESTATE, K.P. VALLOM ROAD KADAVANTHARA
P.O. COCHIN 682 020.
BY ADVS.
P.SATHISAN
DONA AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENTS:
1 PINARAYI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PANCHAYAT OFFICE ROAD,
PINARAYI P.O. KANNUR 670 741, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
2 THE SECRETARY, PINARAYI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
PANCHAYAT OFFICE ROAD, PINARAYI P.O. KANNUR 670 741.
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, REPRESENTING DISTRICT TELECOM
COMMITTEE, KANNUR, COLLECTORATE ROAD, THAVAKKARA,
CIVIL STATION, P.O. KANNUR 670 002.
4 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KANNUR, OFFICE OF DISTRICT
POLICE CHIEF, THAVAKKARA, CIVIL STATION P.O. KANNUR
670002.
5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PINARAYI POLICE STATION CHERIKKAL
ROAD, PINARAYI P.O. KANNUR 670 741.
WPC 14142/21
2
6 SREEJITH, AGED IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
S/O.K.K. RAJAN, SREEKALA NIVAS, ERUVATTY PINARAYI
P.O. KANNUR 670 741.
BY ADVS
SRI. SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN
SRI.E.C.BINEESH - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 14142/21
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner - which is stated to be a
private limited company, registered under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 - has
approached this Court alleging that the 6th
respondent and his men are attempting to obstruct
the work of establishment of a telecom tower,
which they are entitled to continue and complete
on the edifice of valid permissions and consents.
2. I notice that when this matter was
considered by another learned Judge of this Court
on 29.07.2021, the following interim order had
been issued:
Sri.M.Sasindran appears for the 6th
respondent.
2. Sri.P.Sathishan, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submitted
that based on the application filed by the
petitioner herein, Ext.P5 building permit
was issued by the local authority.
However, a condition has been imposed
whereby the petitioner has been asked to
register the lease deed within a period of
three months from the date of issuance of
WPC 14142/21
the permit. The learned counsel contends
that this Court has held in Posidon
Infrastructure Pvt. Litd. v. the Sub
Inspector of Police [2012 (3) KHC 455] and
it was argued that the local authority was
not justified in insisting upon getting
the deed registered. It is contended that
when obstruction was caused to the
construction, the petitioner had
approached the DTC and after hearing both
sides, the police were ordered to grant
assistance. However, on the premise that
Ext.P8 show-cause notice has been issued
by the Panchayat for non fulfilling the
conditions of the permit, protection is
not being granted. According to the
learned counsel, the approach of the
police has been misguided and
unsustainable.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the 6th
respondent seeks an adjournment.
4. In view of the submissions advanced, there
will be an interim order, as prayed for,
for a period of three weeks.
3. Today, when this matter was called, there
was no appearance for the 6th respondent; while
Sri.P.Sathisan, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that, on the strength of the
afore extracted interim order, the work is almost
complete.
In the afore circumstances and since the 6th
respondent is not opposing the plea of the
WPC 14142/21
petitioner, I order this writ petition confirming
the afore interim order.
At this time, Sri.Satheesan Alakkadan -
learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, submitted
that liberty may be granted to his clients to
verify if there are any violations on the part of
the petitioner and if so, to take necessary
action.
It is needless to say that, since I have not
considered any contentions other than the alleged
threat posed by the 6th respondent to the
petitioner, the Panchayat is at liberty to take
any legitimate action, however, only after
following due procedure and after affording
necessary opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
WPC 14142/21
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14142/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER COMPANY DATED
22.06.2006.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER OF
MANAGER LEGAL DATED 19.11.2020 AND
RELEVANT EXTRACT OF BOARD RESOLUTION.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. M.1247/2020
DATED 13.01.2021 IUD BY THE IST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE EMF CERTIFICATE FOR
RADIATION COMPLIANCE FROM DEPARTMENT OF
TELECOMMUNICATION (DOT) DATED
02.12.2020.
Exhibit P3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
LEASE DEED DATED 30.03.2020.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ST
RESPONDENT DATED 14.01.2021.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.
A3.1247/20 DATED 03.02.2021.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING OF
3RD RESPONDENT, DTC DATED 11.06.2021.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST AND 4TH
RESDPEONT VIA E-MAIL DATED 02.07.2021.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.
DOT/KRL/6-14 /DM-CORR/2019-20 DATED
WPC 14142/21
24.03.2020.
