High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2011-05-30Petition allowed; police protection granted to ...

Indus Towers Limited v. The Superintendent of Police, Malappuram District and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 8754 of 2011(T)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
K. Surendhra Mohan
Judgment Date: 2011-05-30
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioner to construct, install and operate the telecommunication tower in accordance with Ext. P2 permit issued by the 8th respondent, subject to the safeguards observed in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KHC 171).
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; police protection granted to petitioner with conditions as per cited Essar authorities.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Indus Towers Limited

Respondents

The Superintendent of Police, Malappuram District
Station House Officer, Kalpakancherry Police Station, Malappuram
Kunjheen, S/o Kunjaruha ji, Iringavoor, Malappuram District
Hamza, S/o Muhammedkutty Haji, Iringavoor, Malappuram District
Mussa ir, S/o Muhammedkutty, Iringavoor, Malappuram District
Aboobackar, S/o Yahoo, Iringavoor, Malappuram District
Yousef, S/o Mammukutty, Iringavoor, Malappuram District
Cheriyamundam Grama Panchayath, rep. by its Secretary, Tirur Taluk, Malappuram District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. P. Sathisan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sm. C.M. Charisma (Govt. Pleader)
• Sri V.G. Arun
• Sri T.R. Harikumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

Indus Towers Limited seeks relief under Article 226 to obtain directions directing police protection to construct, install and operate a mobile transmission tower in line with Ext. P2, a regular permit issued by the eighth respondent. The petitioner contends that once Ext. P2 is issued, construction should proceed, but respondents 3 to 7 allegedly obstruct the project. The petitioner prays for police protection to ensure completion in the face of such obstructions. The court notes that Ext. P2 constitutes a regular permit and that respondents 4 to 7, though served, did not appear or substantiate any objections. Citing 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 court indicates that police protection can be granted under the circumstances, subject to safeguards laid down in the latter decision. The petition is allowed with directions that respondents 1 and 2 provide police protection to the petitioner to construct, install and operate the tower in accordance with Ext. P2, while observing the conditions echoed in the cited Essar cases. Interim safeguards, including possession of valid licences, maintaining active permits, and refraining from harmful demonstrations, are noted in the order. The matter reflects a balance between regulatory compliance and security of construction activities pending final disposal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 226Kerala Municipalities Building Rules, Rule 141

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submitted that Ext. P2 constitutes a regular permit and the tower construction must proceed; police protection is necessary to prevent unlawful obstructions by respondents 3–7. Reliance was placed on the Essar Telecom decisions to anchor the relief sought under Article 226 and to ensure safeguards against misuse of the protection order.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents 3–7 did not appear or file objections. The available record indicates that the respondents could challenge the permit through proper authorities; however, since no opposing submissions were presented, the court proceeded with safeguarding directions consistent with established jurisprudence on police protection in writ petitions.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. C.I of Police	2010 (2) KLT 762	Positive	Cited as authority supporting police protection in writ petitions; relied upon to justify granting protection subject to appropriate safeguards.
Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala	2011(2) KHC 171	Positive	Used to frame the safeguards and conditions that must accompany police protection granted under Article 226.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Indus Towers Limited v. The Superintendent of Police, Malappuram District and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** **MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933** **WP(C).No. 8754 of 2011(T)** **----------------------** **PETITIONER :** - **---------------** **INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, VANKARATH TOWER, 8TH FLOOR, N.H.BYEPASS, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-24 REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, PREMAKRISHNAN NAIR M.N., HEAD LEGAL.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------------------** **1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505.** **2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KALPAKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM-676501.** **3. KUNJHEEN, S/O.KUNJARUHAJI, VALIYENDAL, IRINGAVOOR P.O., IRINGAVOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676103.** **4. HAMZA, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, PATTAKKACHOLA HOUSE, IRINGAVOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676103.** **5. MUSSAIR, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, PATTAKKACHOLA HOUSE, IRINGAVOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676103.** **6. ABOOBACKAR, S/O.YAHOO, ALUMKOOTTATHIL, IRINGAVOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676103.** **7. YOUSEF, S/O.MAMMUKUTTY, IRINGAVOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, 676103.** **8. CHERIYAMUNDAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676101.** **R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA R8 BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN** **SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** **WP(C).No. 8754 of 2011(T)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDER CATEGORY – I (IP-I).** - **EXT.P1(a) : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GOVT. OF INDIA WITH RESPECT TO THE NAME CHANGE.** - **EXT.P1(b) : COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY CENTRAL GOVT. TO ONE OF THE SERVICE PROVIDERS.** - **EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24/9/2010.** - **EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 10/2/2011.** - **EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO THE P3 COMPLAINT DATED 10/2/2011.** - **EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT NOTIFICATION CONFERRING THE STATUS OF TELEGRAPH AUTHORITY ON THE PETITIONERS.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **Mn** ## **R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.** **-----------------------------------------------------------W.P(C) NO: 8754 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 30[th] May, 2011.** ## **JUDGMENT** ## Basant, J. Petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to enable the petitioner to construct, instal and operate a telecommunication tower as per Ext.P2 permit issued by the 8[th] respondent. 2. According to the petitioner Ext.P2 regular permit has been issued to the petitioner by the eighth respondent. When the petitioner undertakes such work to construct, instal and operate the tower respondents 3 to 7 are raising untenable and illegal obstructions. Police protection may in these circumstances be granted to the petitioner, it is prayed. 3. Our attention has been drawn to **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}.** Ext.P2 is a regular permit. Respondents 4 to 7 though served have not chosen to enter appearance or raise and substantiate their objections, if any. WPC 8754/2011 2 4. We are in these circumstances satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to an order of police protection as prayed for. Needless to say the order of protection shall be subject to the observations and conditions stipulated in **Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala {2011(2) KHC 171}.** 5. In the result; a) This petition is allowed. b) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioner against respondents 3 to 7 to construct, instal and operate the telecommunication tower in accordance with Ext.P2 permit issued by the eighth respondent. R.BASANT Judge ## K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 8754/2011 3 5 **R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.** **-----------------------------------------------------------W.P(C) NO:8754 OF 2011 T ----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] March, 2011.** ## **O R D E R** ## Basant, J. Service is complete. There is no appearance for respondents 3 to 8. Learned Govt. Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Our attention has been drawn to the directions issued earlier by different Benches under identical circumstances. We are satisfied that interim directions can be issued subject to appropriate safeguards. Accordingly we issue the following interim directions:- i) Respondents 1 and 2 shall grant adequate police protection to the petitioner to proceed with and complete the construction of mobile transmission tower as against any 6 obstruction that may be raised by respondents 3 to 7 for a period of one month from this date on the following terms and conditions:- a) The petitioner must possess valid licences/permits issued by the statutory authorities concerned for the construction of mobile transmission tower including the licence from the Department of Telecommunications. b) No prohibitory order issued by a competent civil court or statutory authority restraining the petitioner from proceeding with the construction of mobile transmission tower is in force. c) The building permit issued by the local authority has not been cancelled or revoked and no stop memo has been issued by the competent authority or is in force. We make it clear that respondents 3 to 7 , if they are so advised, shall be at liberty to challenge the permit granted to the petitioner before the competent superior authorities. d) The petitioner shall not commission the mobile transmission tower without obtaining further orders from this Court. e) The respondents objecting to the construction of the mobile transmission tower shall be free to carry out peaceful 7 demonstration against the construction; but shall not cause any physical obstruction to the construction or commit any act of waste. f) If it is found that the petitioner must acquire permission other than permission under Rule 141 of the Kerala Municipalities Building Rules, the petitioner shall be liable to demolish the tower. g) No equipment including generator shall be put up on the tower without further directions from this Court. 4. Call on 31-3-2011 for final disposal. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj 8 9 Heard. Admitted. Notice given and the learned Govt. Pleader appears for respondents 1 and 2. Issue notice to respondents 3 to 8. Counsel prays and is accordingly permitted to take out notice to respondents 3 to 8 by special messenger. Verify service and call again on 28-3-2011. R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj 10