P.V. John vs Kottappady Grama Panchayath
2021 Latest Caselaw 14682 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
     WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 35716 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:

          P.V. JOHN,
          AGED 70 YEARS,
          S/O. VARGHESE, AGED 70 YEARS, PUTHUKKUNNETHU,
          KOTTAPPADY, VADASSERY, KOTHAMANGALAM.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.A.ANTONY
          SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     KOTTAPPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
          KOTTAPPADY, KOTHAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
          SECRETARY- 686692

    2     THE SECRETARY
          KOTTAPPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTTAPPADY, KOTHAMANGALAM
          - 686692

    3     INDUS TOWERS LIMITED
          8TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS, N.H. BYE PASS,
          PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD LEGAL
          - 682025

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN
          SRI.P.DEEPAK
          SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 35716 OF 2016
                                            2

                                         JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following

reliefs:-

"i. call for the records of the matter leading to Ext.P5 order.

ii. issue a writ of certiorari to set aside Ext.P5 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, in Appeal No.91 of 2016 and dismiss the appeal

iii. Pass such other orders as are deemed just and necessary in the interest of justice."

2. The subject issue relates to the attempt made by the 3 rd respondent,

i.e., Indus Towers Ltd, Ernakulam, to construct a tower within the limits of

Kottappady Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner, if the tower is put

up, there will be lot of health issues and it will materially affect the people of

the Panchayat.

3. A detailed deliberation of the matter is not required, since Sri.

P.Deepak appearing for the 3rd respondent submitted that, the project for

construction of the tower is already abandoned by the 3 rd respondent. In that

view of the matter, I do not think the petitioner is entitled to secure any reliefs

as is sought for in the writ petition. Therefore, the reliefs are declined, in view WP(C) NO. 35716 OF 2016

of the developments that have taken place.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

uu 14.07.2021 WP(C) NO. 35716 OF 2016

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35716/2016

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 06/06/2016 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CARDIOLOGY OF LISIE MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS, ERNAKULAM ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF STUDY OF ANDREA FABRY ON THE HIDDEN EFFECTS OF CELL TOWERS DOWN LOADED FROM THE INTERNET

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/01/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE IST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PER RESOLUTION NO.3 DATED 14/01/2016 OF THE IST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/09/20916 IN APPEAL NO. 91/2016 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.