Indus Towers Limited vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 573 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

    THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.9964 OF 2020(U)


PETITIONER:

               INDUS TOWERS LIMITED
               8TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS, N.H.BYPASS
               PALARIVATTOM ,KOCHI-24, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD
               LEGAL, RAJ KUMAR PAVOTHIL,S/O. NARENDRAN,
               AGED 41 YEARS, INDUS TOWER LIMITED, 8TH FLOOR,
               VANKARATH TOWER, COCHIN NH BYPASS, PALARIVATTOM,
               EDAPPALLY POST, ERNAKULAM-682 024

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S
               SMT.SINDHU S KAMATH
               SMT.ROHINI NAIR

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
               COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM-682 030

      2        THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
               PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION,
               PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-695 121

      3        THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
               ERNAKULAM (RURAL), TEMPLE ROAD, THOTTAKKATTUKARA ,
               ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 108




               SRI PP THAJUDEEN GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD           ON
07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.9964 OF 2020                 2




                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is

engaged in offering passive infrastructure services to all telecom operators and

other wireless service providers. The company has erected towers at Manjapetty

and Marampilly within the limits of the Kadungalloor Grama Panchayat. While the

company was engaged in the process of upgrading the infrastructure, they met

with resistance from some unidentifiable persons. When work was disrupted, the

petitioner approached the 3rd respondent and submitted Ext.P3 representation

seeking protection. According to them, no support was extended in spite of the

fact that Telegraph and Telephone service has been declared as an essential

service as per the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and also under the relevant

provisions of the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1968.

2. The petitioner refers to Exhibit P4 communication issued by the ADG

(Technology), Kerala LSA, by which the Administration and Police have been

requested to provide assistance to facilitate upgradation of various sites. Instead

of acting in terms of Exhibit P4, the Police are taking a lethargic attitude which

gives an added impetus to antisocial elements to disrupt the work, contends the

petitioner. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner approached this

Court seeking a direction to the respondents to provide adequate protection to the

staff and employees of the petitioner to proceed with the upgradation of the

telecommunication tower on the strength of the permit without any threat,

obstruction or hindrance from any person.

3. By order dated 15.05.2020, this Court had directed respondent

Nos.2 and 3 to ensure that no obstruction is caused to the petitioner while

carrying out the work, which is required of him in terms of Exhibits-P2 and P4.

4. I have heard Sri. Krishnaprasad S, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the

District Telecom Committee has started functioning and in view of the directions

issued by this Court in Indus Towers Ltd., Palarivattom v. Sub Inspector

of Police, Thodupuzha and Ors [2014 (4) KLT 306], when an effective

procedure has been provided for resolving all issues relating to installation or

energizing of mobile transmission towers, the petitioner will have to exhaust such

remedies.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced. This Court in Indus

(supra) had held that it is for the DTC to consider all the aspects relating to

erection of Mobile Telecommunication towers and take a decision. The learned

Government Pleader submits that a decision can be taken in an expeditious

manner. In that view of the matter, I direct the petitioner to approach the DTC for

redressing their grievance and on submission of such representation, the DTC

shall consider the same with notice to the affected parties and take a decision as

expeditiously as possible.

7. Till orders are passed by the DTC, respondent Ns.2 and 3 shall

ensure that law and order is maintained.

This Writ Petition will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE DSV

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

 EXHIBIT P1             A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
                        23.03.2020 G.O(MS) NO.49/2020 GAD

 EXHIBIT P2             A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
                        24.03.2020

 EXHIBIT P3             A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
                        04.04.2020

 EXHIBIT P4             A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
                        01.05.2020 FROM DEPARTMENT OF
                        TELECOMMUNICATIONS

 EXHIBIT P5             A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
                        06.05.2020 ISSUED FROM THE 2ND
                        RESPONDENT

 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

                          NIL