Allowed

Shaji Mathew v. the S.I.of Police, Kurathikad

Kerala HC3 Jun 2011WP(C)/4196/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking police protection for the petitioner to construct and operate a mobile telecommunication tower based on a regular permit. Citing precedents and noting the lack of valid objections from private respondents, the court directed the police to ensure safety against illegal obstruction.

What did the court decide?

Police protection directed to be afforded to the petitioner to construct, instal and operate a mobile tower in accordance with the permit issued by the third respondent.

Shaji Mathew Vs the S.I.of Police, Kurathikad — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 4196 of 2011(Y)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

--------------------

¶8

SHAJI MATHEW, PARTNER, PALATHARA CONSTRUCTIONS, CHANGANACHERRY, RESIDING AT PALATHARA HOUSE, THURUTHY PO, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI. V. PHILIP MATHEWS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

--------------------------

¶12

1. THE S.I OF POLICE, KURATHIKAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690 563.

¶13

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶14

3. BHARANICAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PALLICKAL PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY - 690 563.

¶15

4. SREEKUMAR, S/O.VASUDEVA PILLAI, MADATHIL HOUSE, PALLICKAL PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 563.

¶16

5. ANIL KUMAR, S/O.SUKUMARAN MANNOOR THEKKETHIL HOUSE PALLICKAL PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 563.

¶17

6. ELIZABETH SHAJI, W/O.SHAJI MATHEW KALEECKAL THARAYIL HOUSE PALLICKAL PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 563.

¶18

7. SREEKUMARI, W/O.GOPALAN EDAPPURA VADAKKETHIL HOUSE PALLICKAL PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 563.

¶19

...2/-

¶20

WP(C).No. 4196 of 2011(Y) -2-

¶21

8. LIZY BINU, W/O.BINU, BAIZON VILLAYIL, PALLICKAL PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 563. 9. PONNAMMA, W/O.PUSHPAN PUSHPA RAJI BHAVANAM, PALLICKAL PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 563. 10. INDUS TOWERS LTD CIRCLE OFFICE AT VANKARATH TOWERS 8TH FLOOR, NH-47, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-24 REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD LEGAL, PREMAKRISHNAN NAIR. 11. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 12. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND IT, DEPARTMENT OF TELE COMMUNICATIONS, SANCHAR BHAVAN, 20, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI 110001. 13. RAMYA ANEESH, REMYA BHAVAN, MOONNAMKUTTY, BHARANIKAVU, KOLLAM-12 R1, R2 & R11 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS R3 BY ADV. SRI. RASHEED C. NOORANAD, SC R12 BY ADV. SRI. T.P.M. IBRAHIM KHAN, ASG

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

...3/-

¶25

WP(C).No. 4196 of 2011(Y)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXT.P1 : COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT NO. 5167/2010 DATED 2-9-2010.

¶29

EXT.P2 : COPY OF PURCHASE ORDER.

¶30

EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05-02-2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXT.P4 : COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 05-02-2011 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶32

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶37

WPC No.4196 of 2011 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 3^rd June, 2011

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

Basant, J.

¶40

The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition seeking issue of directions to respondents 1 and 2 under Article 226 of the Constitution to afford protection to the petitioner to enable him to construct, instal and operate a mobile telecommunication tower in accordance with Ext.P1 is the regular permit issued by the third respondent Panchayat. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents 4 to 9 are raising illegal objection and obstruction to such acts of the petitioner.

¶41

Notice was ordered. Respondents 1, 2 and 11 have appeared through the learned Government Pleader. Respondent No.3 is represented by a counsel who submits that the third respondent has no objection against the grant of the prayer in the writ petition.

¶42

Party respondents 4 to 9 though served have not

¶43

WPC No.4196 of 2011 2

¶44

chosen to enter appearance and resist the prayer.

¶45

Ext.P1 is a regular permit. It is granted subject to conditions. It is submitted that Ext.P1 has not been challenged by any one. The case of the petitioner is that respondents 4 to 9 are causing illegal obstruction.

¶46

Our attention has been drawn to the decisions in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd., v C.I. of Police [2010(2) KLT 762) (FB)] and Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v State of Kerala (2011(2) KHC 171). In the total absence of any valid objection raised by respondents 3 to 9 and following the above precedents, we are satisfied that police protection can be granted to the petitioner.

¶47

In the result,

¶48

a) This petition is allowed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioner to construct, instal and operate a mobile tower in accordance with Ext.P1 permit issued by the third respondent in the property of the 13^th respondent against any illegal objection/obstruction that may be raised by respondents 4

¶49

WPC No.4196 of 2011 3

¶50

to 9.

¶51

b) We make it clear that the construction has to be undertaken strictly in accordance with the terms of Ext.P1 permit.

¶52

c) Needless to say that police protection granted hereby shall be subject to the observations and conditions

¶53

in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v State of Kerala (2011(2) KHC 171).

¶54

sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE