Kerala High Court
Indus Towers Limited vs District Police Chief on 4 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.11413 OF 2020(B)
PETITIONER:
INDUS TOWERS LIMITED
CIRCLE OFFICE AT VANKARATH TOWERS, 8TH FLOOR, NH 47,
PLARIVATTOM, COCHIN - 24, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER
HEAD LEGAL, RAJKUMAR PAVOTHIL, AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O. P. NARENDRAN, RESIDING AT MIDHILA,
THAMARAMULANGARA, TRIPUNITHURA P. O.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.SATHISAN
SMT.KRISHNA.G.NATH
SMT.DONA AUGUSTINE
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
ALAPPUZHA, CCSB ROAD, CIVIL STATION WARD,
ALAPPUZHA BAZAR P. O., KERALA - 688 012.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
AROOR POLICE STATION, AROOR P. O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 534.
3 DPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION
O/O. SR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, CTSD COMPLEX, GANDHI NAGAR,
KADAVANTHRA P. O., ERNAKULAM - 682020, REPRESENTED BY
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL (TECHNOLOGY), KERALA LSA.
4 AROOR GRAMAPANCHAYATH
NH A1, AROOR - THOPPUMPADY RD, AROOR P. O.,
KOCHI - 688534, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
5 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
BESIDE ZILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, CIVIL STATION WARD,
ALAPPUZHA P. O., KERALA - 688 001.
R3 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
R4 BY ADV. MR.V.N.SANKARJEE, SC, AROOR GRAMAPANCHAYAT
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.01.2021,
ALONG WITH WP(C).11294/2020(J), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.11413 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 been issued with Ext.P5
building permit by the 4th respondent for installation of a tower in Sy. No.33/1 C1
of Aroor Village, Alappuzha District. While the company was engaged in the
process of establishing the tower, they are stated to have met with resistance from
the residents of the locality. When work was disrupted, the petitioner approached
the respondents 1 and 2 and requested for protection to enable them to carry out
the work. 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
Chairman, Kerala State Telecom Disaster Coordination Committee whereby
directions have been issued to the District Administration and the Police to provide
support to the telecom infrastructure providers and also to support the personnel
for carrying out installation and maintenance and also to the passive infrastructure
establishment and all other entities connected thereto. 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 construction of the
telecommunication tower on the strength of Exhibit P5 permit without any threat,
obstruction or hindrance from any person.
3. I have heard Sri. P.Sathisan, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Till orders are passed by the DTC, the 2nd respondent shall ensure
that law and order is maintained.
This Writ Petition will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
sru
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11413/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF PETITIONER
COMPANY DATED 10.1.2008.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
PETITIONER COMPANY DATED 24.7.2008.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION IN
MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 06.06.2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 06.05.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED
BY THE AROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED
23.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
19.05.2020.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
ITS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 04.06.2020.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
