Dismissed

Indus Towers Limited v. Mavoor Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC22 Feb 2012WP(C)/32590/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed a stop work order and set aside a Tribunal order dismissing an appeal on locus standi grounds. It held that a company sued as the permit holder through its Deputy General Manager had standing to challenge the order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Tribunal set aside to the extent of dismissing appeal on locus standi; Notice to stop construction quashed.

Indus Towers Limited Vs Mavoor Grama Panchayath — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶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. 32590 of 2011 (W)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. INDUS TOWERS LIMITED (INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICE PROVIDER OF BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED) VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HUTCHISON ESSAR CELLULAR LIMITED.),8TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS,NH BYEPASS,PALARIVATTOM KOCHI-24, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, PREMAKRISHNAN NAIR M N

¶8

2. BIJU T.NAIR, DGM DEPLOYMENT (NEW) INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, 8TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS, NH BYEPASS, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-24.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. MAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MAVOOR P.O. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673661.

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY,

¶14

MAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MAVOOR P.O.

¶15

KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673661.

¶16

3. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ BY ADV. SMT.M.SHAJNA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.UHAMMED SHAFI.M

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WP(C).No. 32590 of 2011 (W)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT.P1:COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. EXT.P2:COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 15.06.2011.

¶24

EXT.P3:COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 06.08.2011. EXT.P4:COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT IN APPEAL NO.614/2011 DTD.10.11.2011. EXT.P5:COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)27369/2011.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶30

W.P.(c) No. 32590 OF 2011-W

¶31

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Exhibit P2 permit was issued by respondents 1 and 2 enabling the petitioners to establish a Telecommunication Tower within the limits of the 1^st respondent panchayat. Subsequently the 2^nd respondent, through Ext.P3, had directed to stop all construction on the basis that a complaint was received alleging that the workers of the petitioners have manhandled certain people in the locality, who were agitating against construction of the mobile tower. It is stated in Ext.P3 that enquiry conducted on the basis of the complaint revealed that the allegations are true. Therefore the work was directed to stopped and the petitioners were directed to submit objections if any within 3 days. The Petitioners have challenged Ext.P3 in appeal before the 3^rd respondent Tribunal. Exhibit P4 is the order passed by the Tribunal in appeal. The Tribunal categorically

¶34

W.P.(c) No.32590/2011

¶35

-2-

¶36

found that the reasons stated in Ext.P3 about the law and order situation arising out of the alleged manhandling of people in the locality by some workers, is not a proper reason in order to direct stoppage of construction. However, the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the 1^st petitioner company, who was the appellant before the Tribunal, has no locus standi because the permit in question was issued in favour of the 2^nd petitioner. The petitioners are challenging the findings of the Tribunal to that extent.

¶37

On a perusal of Ext.P2 it is evident that the permit was issued in the name of Sri. Biju T. Nair, Indus Towers (P) Ltd., 5^th Floor, Venkarath Building, Palarivattom, Kochi. According to the petitioners, Sri. Biju T. Nair is the Deputy General Manager of the 1^st respondent company and he is the power of attorney holder of the 1^st respondent. The permit was applied and obtained by the said respondent only behalf of company, is the contention. I am of the

¶38

W.P.(c) No.32590/2011

¶39

-3-

¶40

considered opinion that, in the above context the view taken by the Tribunal is too technical. If the 2^nd petitioner had obtained the permit under authority from the the 1^st respondent, it cannot be held that the 1^st petitioner company is not the permit holder. Hence I set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal to that extent.

¶41

Under the above mentioned circumstances the writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P4 order of the 3^rd respondent Tribunal to the extent of dismissing the appeal on the ground that the 1^st petitioner has no locus standi to challenge Ext.P3. In view of the findings entered by the Tribunal regarding unsustainability of Ext.P3, the said notice issued by the 2^nd respondent is hereby quashed. It is made clear that 1^st petitioner company will be entitled to proceed with construction of the tower on the basis of Ext.P2 permit, as long as the same is valid. It is made clear that the above decision will not stand in the way of respondents 1 and 2 taking any fresh steps for revocation or

¶42

W.P.(c) No.32590/2011

¶43

-4-

¶44

suspension of the permit as contemplated under Rule 18 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011, if there exists any valid reason under law, after complying with all procedural formalities required thereunder.

¶45

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

¶46

AMG

¶47

True copy

¶48

P.A to Judge

Indus Towers Limited v. Mavoor Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indus Towers Limited v. Mavoor Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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 Ltd. & Another Vs Ezhome Grama Panchayath & Another