Rugmini Amma vs State of Kerala and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date: 2022-07-11
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed; liberty granted to Rugmini Amma to approach the District Telecom Committee; petitioner's contentions left open to be agitated before the DTC; no further action by the High Court at this stage.
Final Disposition: Disposed, with liberty to approach DTC

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rugmini Amma

Respondents

State of Kerala
District Telecom Committee (DTC), District Collector
Kunnathoor Grama Panchayath
Kunnathoor Grama Panchayath Committee
Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board
M/S Reliance Jio Infocommm Ltd.
Sri Hari Kumar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• B. Mohanlal

Counsels for Respondents

• Dr. K.P. Sathheesan (Sr.)
• G. Harikumar (Gopinathan Nair)
• P. Mohandas (Ernakulam)
• S. Vibheeshanan
• K. Sudhinkumar
• S. K. Adhithyan
• Sabu Pullan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Rugmini Amma filed WP(C) 30611/2019 in the Kerala High Court challenging the erection of a mobile tower by Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd at Ivarkala East Kollam on Re Sy No 724/3/2 of Kunnathoor Village. The petitioner contends that the project was undertaken without a license or permit and in violation of the 2013 guidelines for installation of mobile towers, as well as the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and Kerala Panchayath Building Rules 2011, including the absence of a Structural Stability Certificate. The 6th respondent argues that there is a deemed permit under Rule 16 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules and that any challenge should be directed to the District Telecom Committee (DTC). The respondents rely on government orders and the DTCs authority to ventilate grievances. The court, citing Indus Tower Limited v. Sub Inspector of Police (2014 (14) KLT 306), states that persons aggrieved must approach the DTC to ventilate their grievances before approaching the court. Therefore the writ petition is disposed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the DTC and the contentions are left open for consideration before the DTC. The decision underscores deference to statutory channels for telecom disputes.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and Rules, 1994Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011Rule 16 of the Kerala Panchayat Building RulesGuidelines for issuance of clearance/permit for installation of Mobile Towers (2013)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the 6th respondent erected a mobile tower without any licence, despite statutory requirements and health-safety concerns. The relief sought includes quashing the 3rd respondent's permit and mandamus ordering respondents 1–5 to desist the illegal construction, arguing violation of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, Rules and the 2013 guidelines. The petitioner also challenges the absence of a required Structural Stability Certificate and the failure to obtain permit/clearance from statutory authorities. The petitioner relies on the guidelines for clearance/permit for installation of Mobile Towers and emphasizes that the deemed permit cannot bypass statutory protections.

Contentions of Respondents

The 6th respondent contends that there is a deemed permit under Rule 16 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules and that any challenge should be directed to the District Telecom Committee (DTC). Respondents rely on government orders and the DTCs authority to ventilate grievances. The 2013 guidelines and statutory rules are invoked to justify the permit process.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Indus Tower Limited v. Sub Inspector of Police	2014 (14) KLT 306	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that aggrieved parties should ventilate grievances before the District Telecom Committee; the court quotes the case and acknowledges DTC's role.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**WP(C) NO. 30611 OF 2019** **1** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 30611 OF 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** RUGMINI AMMA AGED 68 YEARS W/O. GANGADHARAN PILLAI, RAJESH BHAVAN, IVERKALA EAST P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM-691 001 BY ADV B.MOHANLAL ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |1|STATE OF KERALA| |---|---| ||REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,| ||INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001| |2|THE DISTRICT TELECOM COMMITTEE (DTC),| ||(DISTRICT COLLECTOR),COLLECTORATE, CIVIL LINES P.O.,| ||KOLLAM-691 013| |3|THE KUNNATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,| ||KUNNATHOOR EAST P.O., KOLLAM-690 540, REPRESENTED BY| ||ITS SECRETARY| |4|THE KUNNATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE,| ||KUNNATHOOR EAST P.O., KOLLAM-690 540, REPRESENTED BY| ||ITS PRESIDENT| |5|THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,| ||KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE| **WP(C) NO. 30611 OF 2019** **2** KADAPPAKKADA P.O, KOLLAM-691 008 6 M/S. RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMMM LTD., PUKLAKKATT KARIYATTU TOWER, MANANGALAM, NEAR YATRI NIWAS, PALARIVATTOM P.O., KOCHI-682 025 7 SRI. HARI KUMAR, SATHALAYAM, KUTTIYIL PADINJATTATHIL, IVERKALA EAST P.O, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM-691 507 BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR) SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.SABU PULLAN ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 30611 OF 2019** **3** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.30611 of 2019 -------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of July, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : _i. “call for the records relating to the construction of the Mobile Tower by the 6[th] respondent in 2109 Sq.Feet of land in Re.Sy.No.724/3/2 of Kunnathoor Village, of the 7[th] respondent and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the permit of the 3[rd] respondent for construction of the Mobile Tower by the 6[th] respondent in the property of the 7[th] respondent in the Residential Area, in Ivarkala East Ward without obtaining permission from the statutory authorities._ _ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 5 to desist the 6[th] respondent against the illegal construction of the Mobile Tower in 2109 Sq.Feet of land in Re.Sy.No.724/3/2 of Kunnathoor Village of the 7[th] respondent without obtaining orders from the Telecom_ **WP(C) NO. 30611 OF 2019** **4** _Committee strictly in violation of the guidelines for issuance of clearance/permit for installation of Mobile Towers 2013 without obtaining order or permission from the statutory authorities and the Provisions of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and Rules, 1994 Kerala Panchayath Building Rules 2011, without obtaining Structural Stability Certificate and various health hazardous. iii. Declare that the Respondents 1 to 5 have absolutely no jurisdiction to issue permission for illegal construction of a Mobile Tower to the 6[th] respondent in 2109 Sq.Feet of land in Re.Sy.No.724/3/2 of Kunnathoor Village, of the 7[th] respondent without obtaining orders from the Telecom Committee strictly in violation of the guidelines for issuance of clearance/permit for installation of Mobile Towers 2013 without obtaining order or permission from the statutory authorities and the Provisions of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and Rules, Kerala Panchayath Building Rules 2011, without obtaining Structural Stability Certificate and various health hazardous._ _iv. Issue such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” [SIC]_ 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that without getting any licence, mobile tower is erected by the 6[th] respondent. On the other hand, the 6[th] respondent contended that there is a **WP(C) NO. 30611 OF 2019** **5** deemed permit as per Rule 16 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules and based on the same, the mobile tower was erected. According to the petitioner, there is no permit and according to the 6[th] respondent, there is a deemed permit. If that is the case, the petitioner can challenge the same before the District Telecom Committee. This point is considered in _**Indus Tower Limited v. Sub Inspector of Police**_ [2014 (14) KLT 306]. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder : _23. “Some of the party respondents has a contention that the construction of MT Tower is not based on the building permit. If there is any such violation, the party respondents are free to take up the matter before the competent authorities including DTC._ _24. Having regard to the Government Orders issued as stated above and the power given to DTC, we are of the view that before approaching this Court, the petitioners as well as the party respondents will have to approach the DTC for the purpose of ventilating their grievances.”_ 3. In the light of the same, the petitioner is free to **WP(C) NO. 30611 OF 2019** **6** approach the District Telecom Committee, if she is aggrieved. Granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Telecom Committee, this writ petition is closed. All the contentions raised in this writ petition are left open and the petitioner is free to agitate all those contentions before the 2[nd] respondent- District Telecom Committee. SD/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **JUDGE** SKS **WP(C) NO. 30611 OF 2019** **7** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30611/2019** PETITIONER EXHIBITS - EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 30/10/2019 - EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 30/10/2019 - EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE IVARKALA EAST WARD BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 13/10/2019 - EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF STOP MEMO NO.A7-5645/19 DATED 18/10/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 - EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO SMT. RENJINI RESIDENT OF THE IVERKALA EAST WARD - EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF HE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P5 NOTICE EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.14/2014/D DATED 15/03/2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R6(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE GO MS NO.14/2014/ITD **WP(C) NO. 30611 OF 2019** **8** DATED 15.3.2014 EXHIBIT R6(B) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.DOT/KRL/6-14/DMCORR/2019-20/ DATED 24.3.2020 EXHIBIT R6(C) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. AS-25/1/2019OFFICE OF DIR (AS-V) DATED 21.3.2020 EXHIBIT R6(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.3.2020 IN WP(C) 33759 OF 2019 AND WPC 50 OF 2020 EXHIBIT R6(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2020 IN WPC 16601 OF 2020