Allowed

Indus Towers Ltd. & Another v. Ezhome Grama Panchayath & Another

Kerala HC22 Feb 2012WP(C)/29931/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court set aside the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner company lacked locus standi to challenge a permit suspension notice. The Court directed the Panchayat to decide on the permit renewal application based on the Tribunal's merit-based findings within two weeks. The Court held the Tribunal's procedural dismissal was unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal's finding regarding locus standi set aside; Panchayat directed to decide on permit renewal within 2 weeks based on Tribunal's merit findings.

Indus Towers Ltd. & Another Vs Ezhome Grama Panchayath & Another — Kerala HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/3RD PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 29931 of 2011 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. INDUS TOWERS LIMITED(INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICE PROVIDER OF BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR LIMITED)

¶8

8TH FLOOR,

¶9

VANKARATH TOWERS, NH BYPASS, PALARIVATTOM,

¶10

KOCHI-24,

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD LEGAL PREMAKRISHNAN NAIR.M.

¶12

2. PREMAKRISHNAN NAIR, HEAD LEGAL INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, 8TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS, NH BYPASS, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-24.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

1. EZHOME GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNUR-670501.

¶16

2. THE SECRETARY,EZHOME GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNUR-670501.

¶17

3. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶18

BY ADVS.SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.SAJU J PANICKER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 29931 of 2011 (N)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1:	COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DT.30-6-2010.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF APPLICATION DT.27-7-2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PANCHAYATH.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF REPLY ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO EXHIBIT P3 APPLICATION.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6:	COPY ORDER ISSUED BY TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT IN APPEAL NO.579/2011 DT. 18-10-2011.
EXT.P7:	COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 26864/2011.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS - NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶30

W.P.(c) No. 29931 OF 2011-N

¶31

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Petitioners were issued with Ext.P2 building permit from the 1^st respondent Grama Panchayat, for erection of a Telecommunication Tower. Subsequently the petitioners applied for extension of validity of Ext.P2 permits. Through Ext.P4 notice the 2^nd respondent had intimated that a mass complaint was received against granting of permit and therefore a Sub Committee has been constituted to look into the said complaint, after convening a meeting of the representatives of the petitioner company as well as the persons who had raised objections. It is intimated that only after the Sub Committee takes a decision on the issue, the application for renewal can be considered. The 1^st petitioner had challenged Ext.P4 in appeal before the 3^rd respondent Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the reasons mentioned in Ext.P4 are unsustainable if the application for renewal was

¶34

W.P.(c) No. 29931/2011

¶35

-2-

¶36

accompanied by proper documents evidencing eligibility like, agreement with the Telecommunication Department, copy of the document to prove ownership etc. There is no illegality in renewing th building permit, is the findings. However, the Tribunal found that the permit granted is not in the name of the 1^st petitioner company, who was the appellant before the Tribunal. On that ground the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal, to the above extent.

¶37

I find that Ext.P2 permit was issued in favour of Sri. M.N. Premakrishnan Nair, M/s. Indus Towers Ltd., Vankarath Towers, Palarivattom, Kochi. Contention of the petitioner is the Sri. M.N. Premakrishnan Nair is the Deputy General Manager of the 1^st petitioner company and he is the power of attorney holder of the company. It is contended that he had obtained permit only on behalf of the 1^st petitioner company, as he was only representing the company for obtaining the permit. It is pertinent to note

¶38

W.P.(c) No. 29931/2011 -3-

¶39

that even the 1^st respondent Panchayat had taken a contention before the Tribunal that the permit in question was issued in favour of the petitioner company. Therefore, I do not agree with the conclusions arrived by the Tribunal that the 1^st petitioner has no locus standi to challenge Ext.P4, which is highly technical and cannot be sustained. Hence I am of the view that Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal warrants interference to that limited extent.

¶40

Since the Tribunal had categorically found that the

¶41

reasons mentioned in Ext.P4 is not sustainable, it is for respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate decision on the application for renewal of the permit, in view of the observations contained in Ext.P6. Interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the 2^nd respondent to dispose of application for renewal of permit, within a time limit to be prescribed.

¶42

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the findings of the Tribunal in Ext.P6 to the extent it found that the 1^st petitioner company is not the holder of

¶43

W.P.(c) No. 29931/2011

¶44

-4-

¶45

Ext.P2 building permit. In view of the other findings arrived at by the Tribunal in Ext.P6, which remains unchallenged, I direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioners for renewal of Ext.P2 permit and to take a final decision thereon at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶46

Needless to say that the said decision has to be taken on the basis of finding arrived by the Tribunal, on the merits of Ext.P4 notice.

¶47

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶48

AMG

¶49

True copy

¶50

P.A to Judge

Indus Towers Ltd. & Another v. Ezhome Grama Panchayath & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indus Towers Ltd. & Another v. Ezhome Grama Panchayath & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.L.Prameela Vs Kottangal Grama Panchayat

P.Shanmughan Vs the Nannambara Grama Panchayat

Badarudeen Vs Elamkunnapuzha Grama Panchayath

Indus Towers Limited and Another Vs Ranjith Lal N.K. & Anor

Indus Towers Limited Vs Chavara Grama Panchayath

Indus Towers Limited Vs Mavoor Grama Panchayath