Allowed

Shaji Mathew v. the S.I. of Police, Mannar and Others

Kerala HC27 May 2011WP(C)/6739/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought police protection for constructing a telecom tower in Mannar against objections by nearby residents and authorities. Petitioner relied on a valid building permit affirmed by the Local Self Government Tribunal. Court issued directions requiring police protection for the construction, installation, and operation of the tower.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to Respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection for construction, installation, and operation of the telecommunication tower as permitted in Ext.P1.

Shaji Mathew Vs the S.I. of Police, Mannar and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | 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 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 6739 of 2011(N) --------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 622.

¶13

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA-689 622.

¶14

3. MANNAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MANNAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 622, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

4. C.E.ABRAHAM, KARUVELIL HOUSE, PAVOOKARA P.O., MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 622.

¶16

5. A.J.MATHEW @ RAJU, ANKAMALIL HOUSE, PAVOOKARA P.O., MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 622.

¶17

6. ANISH, S/O.ANIYAN, PANTHALATTIL THEKKETHIL HOUSE, PAVOOKARA P.O., MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 622.

¶18

7. MARIYAMMA, W/O.OOMMEN, PANTHALATTIL THEKKETHIL HOUSE, PAVOOKARA P.O., MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 622.

¶19

sts 2/-

¶20

-2-

¶21

WP(C)NO.6739/2011

¶22

8. PHILIP MATHEW, S/O.A.J.MATHEW,

¶23

ANKAMALIL HOUSE, PAVOOKARA P.O., MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 622.

¶24

9. ANNAMMA, W/O.ANIYAN, PANTHALATTIL THEKKETHIL HOUSE, PAVOOKARA P.O., MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 622.

¶25

10. HARISH, S/O.GOPINATHAN, MOOLAYIL HOUSE, PAVOOKARA P.O., MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 622.

¶26

11. PRAKASH, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, MOOLAYIL HOUSE, PAVOOKARA P.O., MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 622.

¶27

12. PANKAJAKSHI, W/O.BHASKARAN,

¶28

PANTHALATTIL THEKKETHIL HOUSE, PAVOOKARA P.O., MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-689 622.

¶29

13. INDUS TOWERS LTD., CIRCLE OFFICE AT VANKARATH TOWERS, 8TH FLOOR, NH-47, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-24, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD-LEGAL, PREMAKRISHNAN NAIR.

¶30

14. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶31

CHIEF SECRETARY, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶32

15. 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.

¶33

R1, R2 & R14 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU R5 TO R7, R9 TO R12 BY ADV. SRI.V.ANIL (K/1480/98) R15 BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH, CGC & ASGI

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

3/-

-3-

WP(C)NO.6739/2011

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶41

P1 COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.8065/2011 DATED 05/01/2011

¶42

P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/02/2011 PASSED BY THE LSG TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN APPEAL. NO.139/2011

¶43

P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26/02/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶44

P4 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 26/02/2011 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶45

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

R.BASANT &

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶52

W.P(C) NO: 6739 OF 2011N

¶53

Dated this the 27^th May, 2011.

¶54

JUDGMENT

¶55

Basant, J.

¶56

Petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Art.226 of the Constitution to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to the petitioner for undertaking

¶57

the construction, installation and working of a telecommunication tower in the property of the fourth respondent in accordance with Ext.P1 building permit issued by the third respondent against illegal obstructions by respondents 5 to 12.

¶58

According to the petitioner the building permit is valid. The construction is to be undertaken in the property of the fourth respondent. Respondents 5 to 12 according to the petitioner are causing illegal and unjustified objection/obstruction to the construction and working of the tower. It is in these circumstances that directions are sought.

¶59

Respondents have been served. There is no appearance for respondents 5 to 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶60

WPC 6739/2011 2

¶61

submits that even though Ext.P1 permit was cancelled by the Panchayat, the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions by judgment dated 4-4-2011 in Appeal 139/2011 has set aside the revocation. The building permit Ext.P1 is hence valid, it is submitted.

¶62

Respondents 5 to 12, party respondents have not chosen to appear before Court nor has any counter affidavit been filed by them.

¶63

Our attention has been drawn to the decision 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}. Having considered all relevant circumstances, we are satisfied that the petitioner is entitled for police protection subject to the observations and conditions in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State

¶64

of Kerala {2011(2) KHC 171}.

¶65

In the result;

¶66

a) This petition is allowed.

¶67

WPC 6739/2011

¶68

¶69

b) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioner to undertake the work of construction, installation and operation of the telecommunication tower as permitted in Ext.P1.

¶70

R.BASANT

¶71

Judge

¶72

K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶73

¶74

WPC 6739/2011 4

¶75

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶76

-----------------------------------------------------------W.P(C) NO:6739 OF 2011 N

¶77

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 11^th March, 2011.

¶78

O R D E R

¶79

Basant, J.

¶80

Service is complete. Respondents 1, 2 and 14 appeared through the learned Govt.Pleader. Other respondents have been served. Respondents 4 to 12 have appeared through counsel. No representation for the other respondents. Counsel for the petitioner presses for interim orders. Counsel for respondents 4 to 12 prays for time for filing objections. File objections with copy to the counsel for the petitioner in one week. Call on 21-3-2011.

¶81

R.BASANT Judge

¶82

K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶83

¶84

WPC 6739/2011 6

Shaji Mathew v. the S.I. of Police, Mannar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji Mathew v. the S.I. of Police, Mannar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.N.Ramaswami & Another Vs the State of Kerala & Others

Bijumon Vs Superintendent of Police,Pathanamthitta

Vembanad Cruises (P) Ltd. Vs the Superintendent of Police

Indus Towers Ltd. Vs the S.I. of Police, Alappuzha

Indus Towers Ltd. & Another Vs the S.I of Police, Pattanakkad & Ors.

Gtl Infrastructure Limited Vs the Sub Inspector of Police,Kalamassery