Kerala High Court
Anil Kumar E.M. vs Indus Towers Ltd. on 5 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/15TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.8621 OF 2019(C)
PETITIONERS:
1 ANIL KUMAR E.M., S/O. MANIAN PILLAI,
AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT EDAVANA,
KAVUMBHAGOM P.O., THIRUVALLA 689 102.
2 REJI MATHEW,S/O. VARGHESE MAMMEN,
AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT
CHANDRAVIRUTHIL HOUSE, MANNAMKARACIRA,
THIRUVALLA 689 102.
3 RAJESH KUMAR M.S.,S/O. SASIDHARAN NAIR,
AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT MELATTU HOUSE,
MANNAMKARACHIRA, KAVUMBHAGOM, THIRUVALLA 689 102.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.P.S.APPU
SMT.G.AMBILY
RESPONDENTS:
1 INDUS TOWERS LTD., 8TH FLOOR,
VENKARATH TOWER, COCHIN,
NH BY PASS, PALARIVATTOM,
EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM 682 024.
2 M.G. VENUGOPAL, S/O. THANGAMMA,
RADHAMANDHIRAM, MANNAMKARACHIRA,
KAVUMBHAGOM P.O., THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA 689 102.
3 THE SECRETARY,
THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY,
PATHANAMTHITTA 682 101.
4 DISTRICT TELECOM COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA,
WP(C)No.8621/2019
2
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 101.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
R1 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
R1 BY ADV. SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
R1 BY ADV. SMT.V.T.LITHA
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R3 BY SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND, SC, THIRUVALLA
MUNICIPALITY
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RASHMI K.M.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No.8621/2019
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2021
The writ petition has been filed seeking to quash
Ext.P1 and direct the 4th respondent to consider objections
raised by the petitioners and other residents of the locality
where the 1st respondent proposes to install a telecom tower
as per Ext.P1 building permit.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that a telecom tower is being constructed in a "Thodu
Puramboke" area and the construction is going on. The
petitioners have produced Ext.P5 mass petition submitted
before the Municipal Secretary, Thiruvalla, pointing out that
there are Schools and Libraries functioning close to the
proposed telecom tower and the place where the telecom
tower is proposed to be erected is a converted wet land.
Therefore the construction would be illegal and against
WP(C)No.8621/2019
public interest, contended the learned counsel for the
petitioners.
3. As regards the complaint placed before the 3 rd
respondent - Municipal Secretary, Thiruvalla, the learned
standing counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent would
submit that the issue of telecom tower is pending
consideration before the District Telecom Committee and the
petitioners have placed their grievance before the District
Telecom Committee.
4. The 1st respondent would submit that the writ
petition is frivolous and the pendency of the writ petition is
causing considerable difficulties to the 1st respondent in as
much as they cannot start construction of the telecom tower.
The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed, as the
issue is pending before a competent Forum, contended the
learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent.
5. The 4th respondent-District Telecom Committee
has filed a counter affidavit in which it has been stated that
WP(C)No.8621/2019
the 4th respondent has gathered information and reports
from the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent has stated
that the site where the telecom tower is proposed is not a
'thodu' or 'road puramboke'. The learned counsel for the 4 th
respondent submits that the complaint of the 1 st respondent
is received by the 4th respondent on 04.02.2019 and it was
taken for consideration by the District Telecom Committee
convened on 11.02.2019. A report was called for from
Thiruvalla Municipality as to whether the construction of the
telecom tower is in 'thodu puramboke'. Now due to the
pendency of the writ petition the 4 th respondent has not
proceeded with the issue.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that though the sanction granted was for construction
of telecom tower in a place other than a 'thodu puramboke',
now actual construction is on a 'thodu puramboke'.
Therefore a physical inspection of the site may be
necessary.
WP(C)No.8621/2019
7. Heard.
In the circumstances of the case, this Court deem it not
necessary to adjudicate the issue involved in the writ petition
now, since the issue is pending before the competent Forum
namely District Telecom Committee. Therefore, the writ
petition is disposed of directing the 4 th respondent to take
appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law
after hearing the petitioners, 3rd respondent and other
affected parties within a period of two months.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ncd
WP(C)No.8621/2019
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT AND
SKETCH OBTAINED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 17-09-2018.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIOND ATED 29-
01-2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH DATED
17-05-2018.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY
PTA DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 31-1-2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 19-2-
2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26-2-2019.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF
THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.02.2019.
EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
DATED 02.03.2019.
