Indus Towers Limited vs The District Telecom Committee
2021 Latest Caselaw 4824 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

     WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST
                        MAGHA,1942

                   WP(C).No.918 OF 2021(L)


PETITIONER/S:

             INDUS TOWERS LIMITED
             8TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS, NH BYPASS,
             PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN - 682024, KERALA, INDIA,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR.
             RAJKUMAR PAVOTHIL - HEAD LEGAL, KERALA CIRCLE
             COMPRISING OF STATE OF KERALA.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
             SRI.ARUN THOMAS
             SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN
             SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
             SMT.JAISY ELZA JOE

RESPONDENT/S:

     1       THE DISTRICT TELECOM COMMITTEE
             REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN(DISTRICT
             COLLECTOR), COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
             DISTRICT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035.

     2       THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
             OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
             TRIVANDRUM RURAL POLICE PALAYAM,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033.
                                    -2-
W.P.(C). No. 918 of 2021



         3         THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CORRECTED)
                   KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION, ALAMCODE,
                   KADAKKAVOOR, ANCHUTHENGU ROAD, ANCHUTHENGU,
                   THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695036.
                   (R3 CORRECTED
                   THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANCHUTHENGU POLICE
                   STATION, ALACODE KADAKKAVOOR ACHUTHENGU ROAD,
                   ANCHUTHENGU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695036)
                   ADDRESS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 4-2-2021
                   IN IA 1/2021 IN WP(C) 918/2021.

         4         ANCHUTHENGU GRAMA PANCHAYAT
                   REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VALLAKADAVU
                   ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695309.

         5         JOBY ANTO
                   PAZHAYA BENGALOW, THONIKKADAU, ANCHUTHENGU,
                   TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695309.

         6         PATHROSIA
                   PAZHAYA BENGALOW, THONIKKADAU, ANCHUTHENGU,
                   TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695309.

         7         MARY
                   PAZHAYA BENGALOW, THONIKKADAU, ANCHUTHENGU,
                   TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695309.

                   R4 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN
                   R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.KHALID
                   R4 BY ADV. SMT.K.P.SUSMITHA

OTHER PRESENT:

                   SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT PLEADER

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                   -3-
W.P.(C). No. 918 of 2021



                                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is an infrastructure provider under

telecom sector, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding respondents 2 and 3 to provide effective and

adequate police protection to the petitioners' workers for

constructing the telecommunication tower without any

obstruction from the respondents 5 to 7 and their supporters

in light of Ext.P3 building permit. The petitioner has also

sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st

respondent to pass orders on Ext.P9 application submitted by

the petitioner seeking police protection for the construction of

the Tower without any obstruction from the respondents 5 to

7 and their supporters.

2. In the writ petition, it is alleged that the

construction of the mobile tower on the strength of Ext.P3

building permit granted by the 4th respondent Grama

Panchayat is being obstructed by respondents 5 to 7. Pointing

out the said fact, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8

representation dated 04.12.2020 before the 3 rd respondent

W.P.(C). No. 918 of 2021

Station House Officer, followed by Ext.P9 representation dated

14.12.2020 before the 1st respondent District Telecom

Committee. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved this writ

petition before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

3. On 13.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on

admission for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice on admission

by special messenger was ordered to respondents 4 to 7

returnable by 20.01.2021. The learned Government Pleader

was directed to get instructions.

4. The petitioner has filed I.A. No.1 of 2021 seeking

an order to correct the address of the 3 rd respondent as stated

in that application. By order dated 04.02.2021 that application

was allowed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3

and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 4 th respondent.

Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents 5 to

7.

W.P.(C). No. 918 of 2021

6. During the course of arguments, the learned

Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that Ext.P9

application made by the petitioner is pending consideration

before the 1st respondent and that the said respondent shall

take an appropriate decision thereon, with notice to the

petitioner and also to the affected parties, without any delay.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point

out the time limit of 15 days prescribed in Ext.P10

Government Order dated 05.11.2014.

8. Having considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of

by directing the 1st respondent to take an appropriate decision

on Ext.P9 application made by the petitioner with notice to the

petitioner and other affected parties, namely respondents 4 to

7, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of

fifteen days from today.

9. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9

SCC 309] the Apex Court held that no mandamus can be

issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the

W.P.(C). No. 918 of 2021

provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law.

In Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259] the

Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no Court has

competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the

Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the

statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule

of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are

contrary to what has been injected by law.

10. Therefore, in terms of the directions contained in

this judgment, the 1st respondent shall take an appropriate

decision in the matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking

note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law on

the point.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE das

W.P.(C). No. 918 of 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDER CATEGORY- 1(IP-1)

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION PURSUANT TO CHANGE OF NAME.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE ANCHUTHENGU GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 15.09.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER -

GO(MS) NO.49/2020/GAD DATED 23.03.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 09.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER IN IA NO.

986/2020 IN APPEAL NO. 503/2020 BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 20.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 4.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.

31/2014/ITD DATED 5.11.2014.;