High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2011-05-27This petition is allowed; police protection ord...

W.P. (C) No. 55/2011 (F) - Indus Towers Ltd. & Shibu Mathew v. The S.I. of Police, Alappuzha South & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C). No. 55 of 2011 (F)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Basant
K. Surendran Mohan
Judgment Date: 2011-05-27
Court Decision / Holding: Petition allowed. Respondents 1–3 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioners for the construction, installation and operation of the mobile transmission tower in accordance with Ext. P6, subject to the observations and conditions in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2011 [2] KHC 171).
Final Disposition: This petition is allowed; police protection ordered for the construction and operation of the mobile tower in terms of Ext. P6, with observations/conditions from Essar decisions applicable.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Indus Towers Ltd.
Shibu Mathew

Respondents

The S.I. of Police, Alappuzha South Police Station, Alappuzha District
The C.I. of Police, Alappuzha South, Alappuzha District
The Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha, Alappuzha District
Alappuzha Municipality, represented by its Secretary
Pushkaran, Mannisseril House, Thirumala Ward, Alappuzha Municipality, Mullakkal
K. Santhosh Kumar, S/o Karunakaran, Santosh Bhavan, Chungam East, Thirumala Ward
P.A. Navas, Convenor, Pradishika Vikasanasamithy, Pallathuruth
Balu, S/o Chandrahasan, Kannukatissery, Chungam East, Thirumala Ward
Udayan, S/o Chellappan, Panamparambu Veedu, Chungam East
Kannan, S/o Madanan, Pazhathara Veedu, Chungam East
Kuttiyayi, S/o Sasankan, Sham Bhavan Veedu, Chungam East
Rajesh, S/o Devarajan, Udayapuram Veedu, Chungam East
Noushad, S/o Mammed, Palliveedu, Chungam East
Aji, S/o Gangadhar, Madathil Veedu, Chungam East
State of Kerala, represented by Chief Secretary
Union of India, represented by Secretary, Ministry of Communications & IT

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V. Philip Mathews
• Sri. Jeph Joseph

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri M.R. Sabu
• Sri C.P. Chandrasekharan (Calicut)
• Sri M. Shaju Purushothaman
• Sri Aparna C. Menon
• Sri C.G.S.C.

Case Synopsis & Summary

Indus Towers Ltd. and Shibu Mathew approached the Kerala High Court under Article 226 seeking police protection to undertake the construction, installation and operation of a mobile transmission tower in accordance with Ext. P6, a permit issued by the fourth respondent (Alappuzha Municipality). The petition asserts that Ext. P6 is valid and that respondents 6–14 have obstructed the project, prompting the plea for police protection. Respondents counter that the tower raises health concerns and cite a Local Self Government circular requiring site selection after public discussion. The court noted the applicants’ reliance on Essar Telecom decisions and examined the competing interests between development and public health, safety, and local governance processes. After considering the pleadings and authorities, the court held that police protection must be granted to permit construction per Ext. P6, while subject to the observations and conditions laid down in the Essar decisions. The judgment thus balances the legitimate objectives of telecom infrastructure with public health safeguards and administrative guidelines, ordering protection to enable the project while ensuring compliance with applicable norms.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submitted that Ext. P6 is a valid, current permit issued by the fourth respondent authorizing the construction, installation and operation of a mobile transmission tower. They sought police protection under Article 226 to prevent illegal obstructions by respondents 6–14, who allegedly oppose the work on grounds of health hazards and in deference to a Local Self Government circular requiring site selection after public discussion. They asserted that the project would comply with safety norms and that objections could be addressed within the framework of the permit and applicable guidelines. They relied on Essar Telecom decisions to support police protection under writ jurisdiction and to emphasize balancing development with public health considerations.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the proposed tower could pose health hazards to local residents, thereby affecting public safety. They relied on a circular from the Local Self Government department mandating site selection after public discussion with residents. They contended that the Ext. P6 permit does not override legitimate health concerns and that police protection should not be ordered without due regard to risks and public consultation. They urged adherence to proper procedures and the circular guidance before any construction at the site.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. C.I of Police	2010(2) KLT 762	Positive	Court references and relies on this decision to justify protection measures and the approach to regulatory objections.
Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala	2011(2) KHC 171	Positive	Court cites this decision explicitly, directing that police protection be granted subject to its observations and conditions.

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 W.P. (C) No. 55/2011 (F) - Indus Towers Ltd. & Shibu Mathew v. The S.I. of Police, Alappuzha South & 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** **FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933** **WP(C).No. 55 of 2011(F)** **---------------------------------** **PETITIONERS:** **---------------------** **1. INDUS TOWERS LTD., CIRCLE OFFICE AT VANKARATH TOWERS, 8THFLOOR, NH-47,PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-24. REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD-LEGAL, PREMAKRISHNAN NAIR.** **2. SHIBU MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, PALATHARA HOUSE, THURUTHY.P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.(PARTNER, PALATHARA CONSTRUCTIONS, CHANGANACHERRY).** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS, SRI.JEPH JOSEPH.** **RESPONDENTS:** **------------------------** **1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688 001.** **2. THE C.I. OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688 001.** **3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,** **ALAPPUZHA. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688 001.** **4. ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 688 001.** **5. PUSHKARAN, MANNISSERIL HOUSE, THIRUMALA WARD,ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688 001.** **6. K.SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. KARUNAKARAN, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, CHUNGAM EAST, THIRUMALA WARD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688 001.** ## **W.P.(C). NO.55/2011-F:** ## **7. P.A. NAVAS, CONVENOR,** **PRADISHIKA VIKASANASAMITHY,PALLATHURUTHU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688 001.** **8. BALU, S/O. CHANDRAHASAN,KANNUKATTISSERY, CHUNGAM EAST, THIRUMALA WARD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688 001.** **9. UDAYAN, S/O CHELLAPPAN, PANAMPARAMBU VEEDU, CHUNGAM EAST, THIRUMALA WARD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688 001.** **10. KANNAN,S/O. MADANAN, PAZHATHARA VEEDU, CHUNGAM EAST, THIRUMALA WARD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688 001.** **11. KUTTAYAI, S/O. SASANKAN, SHAM BHAVAN VEEDU, CHUNGAM EAST, THIRUMALA WARD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688 001.** **12. RAJESH, S/O. DEVARAJAN, UDAYAPURAM VEEDU, CHUNGAM EAST, THIRUMALA WARD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688 001.** **13. NOUSHAD, S/O.MAMMAD, PALLIVEEDU, CHUNGAM EAST, THIRUMALA WARD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688 001.** **14. AJI, S/O. GANGADHARAN,MADATHIL VEEDU, CHUNGAM EAST, THIRUMALA WARD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN – 688 001.** **15. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.** **16. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT, DEPARTMENT OF TELE COMMUNICATIONS, SANCHAR BHAVAN, 20, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001.** **R1 TO R3 & R.15 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU, R6 TO R14 BY ADVS. SRI.C.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (CALICUT), SMT.APARNA C.MENON, SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN, R16 BY C.G.S.C.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **W.P.(C). NO.55/2011-F:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** ## **EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND HARYANA.** **EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND HARYANA.** **EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO. 177/2008 DTD. 10/01/2008 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS & IT, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS.** **EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE FRESH CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION CONSEQUENT UPON CHANGE OF NAME ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND HARYANA.** ## **EXT.P.4.A: COPY OF THE EXT.P.4.** **EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SEND BY THE DIRECTOR (CS-III) OF THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS & IT, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI.** ## **EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DTD. 21/12/10 ISSUED BY THE R.4. MUNICIPALITY TO THE P.1.** **EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 01/01/11 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R.1.** **EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 01/01/11 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF R.1. ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF EXT.P.7.** **EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 01/01/11 SUBMITTED BY THE P.2. BEFORE THE R.2.** ## **EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.** **EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 11/09/06 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO KUDAPPANAKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYAT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT:** ## **EXT.R6.A: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DT. 10/08/2009.** **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** ## **R.BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.** **-----------------------------------------------------------W.P(C) NO:55 OF 2011 F ----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] May, 2011.** ## **JUDGMENT** ## Basant, J. Petitioners have come before this Court seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 to 3 police officials to afford protection to the petitioners for undertaking the work of construction, installation and working of a mobile transmission tower in accordance with Ext.P6 issued by the fourth respondent. 2. According to the petitioners Ext.P6 has been validly issued. Respondents 6 to 14 are raising illegal obstructions against undertaking of the construction as per Ext.P6 in the property of the fifth respondent. It is in these circumstances that police protection is claimed. 3. Respondents have been served. There is no representation for respondents 6 to 14. They have filed a counter affidavit. Inter alia it is contended that the construction, installation and working of the mobile tower would cause health hazards to the members of the local public. Reliance is placed WPC 55/2011 2 on a circular issued by the department for Local Self Government which says that if there be objections the place for erection of the mobile tower must be identified after discussions with the members of the local public. No other contentions are raised. 4. Our attention has been drawn to the decisions 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}.** Counsel prays that police protection may be ordered 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 to 3 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioners for the construction, installation and working of mobile transmission tower in accordance with Ext.P6 permit issued by the fourth respondent. WPC 55/2011 3 c) Needless to say the protection shall be subject to the observations and conditions in **Essar Telecom Infrastructure** **(P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala {2011(2) KHC 171}.** R.BASANT Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 55/2011 4