Indus Towers Ltd. & Shibu Mathew v. The S.I. of Police, Cherpulassery Police Station, The C.I. of Police, Cherpulassery, The Superintendent of Police, Palakkad, Thrikkadere Grama Panchayat, Unniyankutty, Saidalavi, Majeed, Ali, Muhammed Ali, Hamsa, State of Kerala, Union of India (WP(C).No. 38766/2010)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- R.BASANT
- K.SURENDRA MOHAN
- Judgment Date
- 2011-05-27
- Court Decision / Holding
- 3/- This petition is allowed. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to afford protection to the petitioner for undertaking the work of construction, installation and working of the mobile tower as permitted under Ext.P6 against any objection that may be raised by respondents 6 to 10. We make it clear that if there be any subsequent order of competent courts/authorities against undertaking of such work, this order of police protection cannot be enforced.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition allowed; police protection directed to be provided to permit construction, installation and operation of the mobile tower, subject to conditions from the controlling Essar decision and future court orders.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Indus Towers Ltd.
- Shibu Mathew
Respondents
- The S.I. of Police, Cherpulassery Police Station, Palakkad
- The C.I. of Police, Cherpulassery, Palakkad
- The Superintendent of Police, Palakkad
- Thrikkadere Grama Panchayat, Thrikkadere, Palakkad District
- Unniyankutty, S/O Moidu
- Saidalavi
- Majeed, S/O Mamootty
- Ali, S/O Khadar
- Muhammed Ali, S/O Sajutty Haji
- Hamsa, S/O Mammed
- State of Kerala, represented by Chief Secretary
- Union of India, represented by Secretary, DoT
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. V. Philip Mathew
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. M.R. Sabu (Senior Government Pleader)
- • Smt. T.D. Rajalakshmi
- • Sri. R. Sreehari
- • T.P.M. Ibrahim Khan, CG
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petitioners—Indus Towers Ltd. and Shibu Mathew—approached the High Court seeking police protection to undertake the construction, installation and operation of a mobile telecommunications tower on the property with Ext.P6 permit issued by the fourth respondent Panchayat. Respondents 6 to 10 opposed the project, arguing non-compliance with Ext.P6 and pointing to a stop memo issued by the Panchayat, as well as ongoing civil litigation. The petition argues that the health hazards alleged by locals cannot override a project lawfully permitted, and that police protection would prevent obstruction and facilitate lawful work. The petition relies on precedents, notably Essar Telecom decisions, arguing that police protection can be granted subject to conditions set by higher courts. Respondents contend that the tower is not being constructed in terms of Ext.P6 and rely on orders in the local litigation (Ext.P8, CMA 32/2010). After considering pleadings and authorities, the Court cites Essar Telecom frameworks and concludes that police protection may be granted, subject to the observations and conditions in Essar Telecom (2011) 2 KHC 171. If subsequent court orders oppose the project, this order cannot be enforced. The petition is allowed with directions to provide police protection for the tower work.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
Petitioners submit that Ext.P6 building permit issued by the 4th respondent Panchayat authorizes the erection and operation of a mobile tower on the petitioner's land. They contend service is complete since 6,7,9 respondents have appeared in proceedings, and no interim order bars construction. They argue that health hazards raised by locals cannot defeat a lawful project and police protection should be granted subject to the Essar precedents. They note a civil suit (by the 6th respondent) and a pending CMA, but maintain that police protection is a valid remedy to prevent obstruction and allow the project to proceed; they request directions to provide protection pending resolution of related litigation, with adherence to conditions laid down in jurisprudence.
Contentions of Respondents
Respondents object that construction is not in conformity with Ext.P6 and point to a stop memo by the Panchayat, Ext.P8 Munsiff's order and CMA 32/2010, pending before the Sub Court Ottappalam. They cite ongoing local disputes, potential health concerns and local resistance, urging the court to refrain from granting police protection until the civil matters are resolved. They argue that police protection cannot override pending court orders and that the Panchayat's permit may not suffice to authorize the contemplated tower. They request the court to consider the proper legal framework and to await competent orders before providing protection.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd v C.I. of Police | 2010(2) KLT 762 | Mentioned Only | Cited in the discussion but not relied upon as the controlling authority; the court ultimately relies on the 2011 KHC 171 decision for the governing principles. |
| Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala | 2011(2) KHC 171 | Positive | Court explicitly references and follows the observations/conditions laid down in this decision to grant police protection. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Ltd. & Shibu Mathew v. The S.I. of Police, Cherpulassery Police Station, The C.I. of Police, Cherpulassery, The Superintendent of Police, Palakkad, Thrikkadere Grama Panchayat, Unniyankutty, Saidalavi, Majeed, Ali, Muhammed Ali, Hamsa, State of Kerala, Union of India (WP(C).No. 38766/2010) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.