GTL Infrastructure Limited v. Superintendent of Police, Thrissur; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kunnamkul; Circle Inspector of Police, Guruvayoor; Sub Inspector of Police, Guruvayoor; Thomas alias Rajan; P. Sadheesan; M.V. Suresh; Kandanassery Grama Panchayath; St. Mary's Convent LP School

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** **FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933** **WP(C).No. 34239 of 2010(D) -------------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** **---------------** **GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED DOOR NO.40/9643, PRABHU TOWER, IST FLOOR, OPP.CHENNAI SILKS, M.G.ROAD, NORTH ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS DY.CIRCLE HEAD, BABU B.NAIR.** **BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.ARUN THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **---------------** **1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR ,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680561.** **2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680566.** **3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680566.** **4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE OFFICE OF THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680565.** **5. THOMAS @ RAJAN, S/O.INASU, MAROKKY HOUSE, MATTOM POST K.V.THRISSUR DISTRICT-680561.** **-2-** **6. P.V.SADHEESAN, S/O.VISWANATHAN, PARATTU HOUSE, NAMBAZHKKAD POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680565.** **7. M.V.SURESH, S/O.VELUKUTTY, MATTATHIL HOUSE, MATTOM POST,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680561.** - **** 8. K.J.JOSE, S/O.JOSEPH, ANNANAYIKKAL HOUSE MATTOM POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT. [DELETED]** **9. KANDANASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH MATTOM POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-680561.** - ***10. ST. MARY'S CONVENT LP SCHOOL,** **MATTOM, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, PTA.** **R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS. R5 TO R7 & R10 BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN R9 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN** ****R8 IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY, AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER, AS PER ORDER IN IA No.16582/2010 DATED 29-11-2010.** ***R10 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17-06-2011 IN IA No.9479/2011.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 36231 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P (C) No.34239/2010 -3- ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 23-10-2010 ISSUED BY THE KANDANASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT.** - **EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01-11-2010 SUBMITED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENATION DATED 06-11-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4.** - **EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 13-08-2010 IN W.P (c) No.24045/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN APPEAL No.1085/2010 DTD. 23-12-2010. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER IN APPEAL No.1085/2010.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.R6(a) : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23-10-2010** **EXT.R6(b) : COPIES OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PARENT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION OF ST. MARY'S CONVENT L.P. SCHOOL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **AMG** ## **R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.34239 of 2010-D ******************************* Dated this the 17[th] day of June, 2011 ## **JUDGMENT** ## BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 to 4 to afford police protection to the petitioner against illegal obstruction caused by respondents 4 to 8 against the construction of a telecommunication tower as per building permit issued by the 9[th] respondent panchayat produced as Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, though an attempt was made by the 9[th] respondent panchayat to revoke the permit, that attempt has now failed with the order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Respondents 5 to 7, local residents, are unnecessarily raising objections and causing obstructions, it is submitted. During the pendency of this W.P(c) No.34239 of 2011 2 petition, additional 10[th] respondent has got itself impleaded. The 8[th] respondent has subsequently been deleted from the array of parties on the request of the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 permit is now valid. The petitioner is entitled to undertake the construction on the basis of Ext.P1. Respondents 5 to 7 or additional 10[th] respondent have no manner of right to obstruct the construction of the tower. Respondents 5 to 7 and additional 10[th] respondent raised objections against the construction of the tower solely on the ground that the construction of the tower will cause health hazards and inconvenience to the members of the local public and the school. That is not a legally valid or tenable objection. Police are not acting in accordance with law to permit the petitioner to undertake construction. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition. 3. A counsel appears for respondents 5 to 7 and additional 10[th] respondent. The counsel reiterates the objection that the construction of the tower would cause health hazards to members of the local community and the local school. 3 W.P(c) No.34239 of 2011 4. A counsel appears for the 9[th] respondent. The learned counsel submits that though the panchayat had wanted to revoke Ext.P1 permit issued by the panchayat, that attempt has now failed in the light of Ext.P6 judgment of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The permit is legally valid. 5. Our attention has been drawn to the precedents in **Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. C.I of Police** [2010 (2) KLT 762] and **Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala** [2011 (2) KHC 171]. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that in these circumstances no valid objection can be raised to the prayer made in this petition. 6. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the light of the precedents referred above, the petitioner is certainly entitled to for police protection. 7. In the result: a) This Writ Petition is allowed; b) Respondents 1 to 4 are directed to afford protection to the petitioner to construct a mobile tower strictly in accordance with Ext.P1 permit issued by the 9[th] respondent; 4 W.P(c) No.34239 of 2011 c) Needless to say, the direction hereby issued shall be subject to all observations and conditions in **Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala** [2011 (2) KHC 171]. **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** **(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)** rtr/ 5 W.P(c) No.34239 of 2011 # **R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ************************* ## **I.A.No.9479 of 2011 in W.P(C) No.34239 of 2010-D** ## ********************************* Dated this the 17[th] day of June, 2011 ## **ORDER** ## BASANT, J. Heard. Allowed. Petitioner is impleaded as additional respondent No.10 in the Writ Petition. **(R.BASANT, JUDGE)** **(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)** rtr/ W.P(c) No.34239 of 2011 6