Allowed

Indus Towers Ltd. v. the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur

Kerala HC3 Jun 2011WP(C)/8756/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition seeking police protection for a telecommunication tower project. Relying on precedents regarding prior permission for such infrastructure, the court directed police to ensure construction and operation despite objections from individuals who did not appear to oppose the permit.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 and 2 are to afford police protection to petitioner to construct and operate a mobile tower in accordance with Ext.P2 permit against objections by respondents 3 and 4.

Indus Towers Ltd. Vs the Superintendent of Police… — Service and Employment | 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. 8756 of 2011(T)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

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

¶8

INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, VANKARATH TOWER, 8TH FLOOR, N.H.BYEPASS, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-24 REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, PREMAKRISHNAN NAIR M.N., HEAD LEGAL.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001.

¶13

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHERUTHURUTHI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-679531.

¶14

3. ALAGIRI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN, KUNNUMMAL (H), ATTOOR, MULLURKARA, PIN-680 583.

¶15

4. GOPALAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.ALAGIRI, KUNNUMMAL (H), ATTOOR, MULLURKARA, PIN-680 583.

¶16

5. MULLURKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THELAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680101.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. VIPINDAS

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

...2/-

¶21

WP(C).No. 8756 of 2011(T)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDER CATEGORY – I (IP-I).

¶25

EXT.P1(a) : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GOVT. OF INDIA WITH RESPECT TO THE NAME CHANGE.

¶26

EXT.P1(b) : COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY CENTRAL GOVT. TO ONE OF THE SERVICE PROVIDERS.

¶27

EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17.06.2010.

¶28

EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4.1.2011.

¶29

EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO THE P3 COMPLAINT

¶30

EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT NOTIFICATION CONFERRING THE STATUS OF TELEGRAPH AUTHORITY ON THE PETITIONERS.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶36

***************************

¶37

**W.P(C) No.8756 of 2011-T *******************************

¶38

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2011

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

BASANT, J.

¶41

Petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to respondents 1 and 2 to afford police protection to the petitioner to undertake the work of construction, installation and operation of a telecommunication tower in accordance with Ext.P2 building permit issued by the 5^th respondent. Respondents 3 and 4 are raising illegal obstructions, it is complained.

¶42

Service is complete. There is no appearance for respondents 3 to 5. Ext.P2 is a regular permit. No challenge is raised against Ext.P2 by anyone, it is submitted. We accept that submission. Our attention has been drawn to the precedents 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]. In the total absence of any objections, we are satisfied that the prayer can be allowed in the light of the precedents referred above.

¶43

W.P(C) No.8756 of 2011-T

¶44

¶45

In the result:

¶46

a) This Writ Petition is allowed; b) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioner to construct, install and operate a mobile tower in accordance with Ext.P2 permit issued by the 5^th respondent against any objections/obstructions that may be raised by respondents 3 and 4;

¶47

c) Needless to say, this order for police protection is subject to the conditions and observations in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2011 (2) KHC 171].

¶48

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶49

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶50

rtr/

Indus Towers Ltd. v. the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indus Towers Ltd. v. the Superintendent of Police, Thrissur

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

Sri.Jimmy Jose Vs the Official Liquidator

Thankamma Narayanan @ Kutta Chirutha Vs the Circle Inspector of Police & Ors.

K.Gurudasan Vs Sub Inspector of Police and Others

T.N.Vijayan and Another Vs Union of India

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

Gtl Infrastructure Limited Vs State of Kerala and Others