Shaji Mathew v. The S.I. of Police, Kottayam East; The C.I of Police, Kottayam East; The Superintendent of Police, Kottayam; Panachikkad Grama Panchayath; Indus Towers Ltd.; State of Kerala; Union of India; and others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- R. Basant
- K. Surenddra Mohan
- Judgment Date
- 2011-06-03
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition allowed. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioner to construct, install and operate the mobile tower in accordance with Ext.P1 issued by the 4th respondent Panchayath on the property of the 5th respondent, with construction to be strictly in accordance with Ext.P1. The judgment expressly states that this relief is issued subject to all observations and conditions in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KHC 171).
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition allowed; police protection ordered; construction to proceed under Ext.P1 subject to conditions and Essar authorities.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Shaji Mathew
Respondents
- The S.I. of Police, Kottayam East
- The C.I of Police, Kottayam East
- The Superintendent of Police, Kottayam
- Panachikkad Grama Panchayath
- S.R.Santhosh Kumar
- Martin Abraham
- M.K.Jacob
- Jose
- Kunjumon
- K.H. Joseph alias Sunny
- Antappan
- Indus Towers Ltd.
- State of Kerala
- Union of India
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri.V.Philip Mathew
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri.T.K.Vipindas
- • Sri.Liji.J.Vadakedom
- • Sri.Sivan Madathil
- • Sri.P.A.Reziya
- • Premakrishnan Nair
Case Synopsis & Summary
Shaji Mathew, a partner in Palathara Constructions, approached the Kerala High Court seeking police protection to undertake the construction, installation and operation of a mobile transmission tower under Ext.P1, a building permit issued by the Panachikkad Grama Panchayath, on property of respondent 5 who has given consent. Respondents 6 to 12 objected to the project, and a stop memo was issued by the Panchayath; the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions later set aside that stop memo (Ext.P5). The petitioner contends Ext.P1 is a valid permit and that the respondents have no legal authority to obstruct the work; the legal relief of police protection is essential to enable the petitioner to complete the project and to protect the legitimate rights arising from a valid permit. The respondents’ counterpoints, largely technical and regulatory, are found to be lacking tenable objections by the court. The court places reliance on Essar Telecom Infrastructure decisions (2010 (2) KLT 762 - FB and 2011 (2) KHC 171) as supportive authority and clarifies that the right to protect the petitioner’s installation must be exercised within the framework of law. The judgment emphasizes that construction must proceed strictly in accordance with Ext.P1 while preserving the Panchayat’s right to take further action if there is non-compliance. In sum, the court allows the writ petition, directing police protection under the stated conditions, and notes that the decision is subject to the conditions laid down in the Essar authorities.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that Ext.P1 is a regular building permit issued by the Panchayath and that the petitioner has the consent of the 5th respondent to construct a mobile tower on the property. The stop memo issued by the 4th respondent was set aside by the Tribunal (Ext.P5). With Ext.P1 in place, the petitioner seeks police protection under Article 226 to undertake and complete the work, asserting that the construction is lawful and consistent with regulatory approvals. The court is urged to protect the petitioner from obstruction by respondents 6–12, who have no lawful right to impede the project given the substantive permit and the Tribunal’s order, and to ensure compliance with licensing conditions while recognizing the Panchayat’s oversight functions. The court is invited to follow judicial authorities in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. decisions that support protective relief in such circumstances, subject to appropriate safeguards and conditions.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents opposed the petition on grounds of potential regulatory and safety concerns, asserting that consent and permits must be respected and that any relief should be framed to avoid violations of applicable building rules and licensing requirements. They emphasize the need for due process and the possibility of challenging the permit before competent authorities if irregularities are perceived. The respondents stress the importance of balancing private construction rights with public regulations and local governance norms, and to ensure that police protection is not misused to override statutory checks and safeguards.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd., v. C.I. of Police | 2010 (2) KLT 762 (FB) | Positive | Cited as supportive, illustrating the use of protective relief in similar telecom infrastructure matters. |
| Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala | 2011 (2) KHC 171 | Positive | Followed and relied upon to frame the conditions and scope of 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 Shaji Mathew v. The S.I. of Police, Kottayam East; The C.I of Police, Kottayam East; The Superintendent of Police, Kottayam; Panachikkad Grama Panchayath; Indus Towers Ltd.; State of Kerala; Union of India; and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.