Disposed

Indus Towers Limited v. the S.I. of Police, Taliparamba

Kerala HC8 Apr 2013WP(C)/503/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought police protection for constructing a mobile tower and action against local obstruction. The court disposed of the petition permitting the petitioner to operate the tower subject to central norms, pollution control approval, and local body action rights.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was permitted to operate the tower subject to conditions regarding antenna norms, pollution control approval, and local body rights.

Indus Towers Limited Vs the S.I. of Police… — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/18TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶6

WP(C).No. 503 of 2013 (K)

¶7

PETITIONER(S) :

¶8

INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, CIRCLE OFFICE AT: VANKARATH TOWERS, 8TH FLOOR, N.H 47 PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI - 24 REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD - LEGAL PREMAKRISHNAN NAIR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, TALIPARAMBA KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 141.

¶13

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT- 670141.

¶14

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANNUR - 670001.

¶15

4. KURUMATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE OF THE KURUMATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH KURUMATHOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT 670142 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

5. MAYIN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O.UMMER, KEDIYANDINAKATHU VEEDU, MUYYAM P.O., MUYYAM, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT670142.

¶17

6. KAREEM, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, KEDIYANDINAKATHU VEEDU, MUYYAM P.O., MUYYAM TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670142.

¶18

7. MAMMAD, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O.BEERAN MOIDEEN, NADUVIL VEEDU, MUYYAM P.O., TALIPARAMBA KANNUR DISTRICT670142.

¶19

WP(C).No. 503 of 2013 (K)

¶20

8. AYSHA MUHAMMED KUNJU, CHITTARIKKADAVATHU VEEDU, CHORKALA FIROZ MANZIL, KURUMATHOOR P.O. KARIMBAM - 670142.

¶21

9. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

¶22

10. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OFCOMMUNICATIONS AND IT, DEPARTMENT OF TELE COMMUNICATIONS, SANCHAR BHAVAN, 20, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110001.

¶23

R1 TO 3 & R9 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.K. ABOOBACKER R4 BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN R10 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

WP(C).No. 503 of 2013 (K)

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶29

EXT.P-1	COPY OF THE REGISTRATION OF INCORPORATION ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND HARYANA.
EXT.P-2	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND HARYANA.
EXT.P-3	COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO.177/2008 DATED2 10-1-2008 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS & IT, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS.
EXT.P-4	COPY OF THE FRESH CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION CONSEQUENT UPON CHANGE OF NAME ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND HARYANA.
EXT.P4(a)	TYPED COPY OF EXHIBIT P4.
EXT.P-5	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SEND BY THE DIRECTOR (CS-III) OF THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS & IT, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI.
EXT.P-6	COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT DATED 01/12/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-7	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIOIN DATED 15/12/2012 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K.M.JOSEPH & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶35

-----------------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.503 of 2013

¶36

----------------------------------------Dated, this the 8^th day of April, 2013

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

K.M.Joseph, J.

¶39

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following

¶40

reliefs:

¶41

“i). Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to grant adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner, their agents and their workers for constructing/erecting mobile telecommunication tower in the property owned by the 8^th respondent and situated in Survey No.210 of Kurumathoor Village, Taliparamba Taluk, Kannur District based on Exhibit P6, repair, upgrade, maintain and to energize the tower without any threat or obstruction from respondents 5 to 7 or any others under them. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to grant adequate and effective police

¶42

W.P.(C) No.503 of 2013

¶43

¶44

protection to the petitioner, their agents and their workers for sharing mobile transmission tower being constructed based on Exhibit P6 with other service without any threat or obstruction from respondents 5 to 7 or any others under them. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action on Exhibit P7 within a time limit to be specified by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶45

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

¶46

Petitioner is constructing the mobile tower based on ext.P6 permit issued by the 4^th respondent panchayat and strictly in accordance with law. Petitioner is having all necessary licenses for erecting/constructing the mobile towers which is evident from Exhibits P1 to P6. Respondents 5 to 7 and their allies are obstructing the construction works of the mobile tower on the mistaken assumption that mobile towers will cause health hazards. Petitioner wants to complete the construction works of mobile tower immediately. But, petitioner is unable to do the work due to the obstruction and threat made by respondents 5 to 7 and their men. Hence, the petition.

¶47

We heard the learned counsel for the parties. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, petitioner has completed

¶48

W.P.(C) No.503 of 2013 3

¶49

construction. Learned Government Pleader submits that, there is no other Tower within 1 k.m. In such circumstances, we see no reason why the petitioner should not be permitted to operate the Tower. Accordingly, we permit the petitioner to operate the Tower subject to the following conditions.

¶50

As far as the fixation of Antenna is concerned, it should be fixed in accordance with the norms including the latest norms issued by the Central Government. Secondly, as far as the Generator is concerned, it should be installed after getting approval from the Pollution Control Board and permit under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Regarding fixation of Antenna, we make it clear that this will be subject to the right of the concerned Local Body to take action on the basis of Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.

¶51

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶52

(K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE.

¶53

( K.RAMAKRISHNAN) JUDGE.

¶54

Indus Towers Limited v. the S.I. of Police, Taliparamba

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indus Towers Limited v. the S.I. of Police, Taliparamba

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrika Vs the Superintendent of Police, Kollam

T.K. Thampi Vs the District Police Chief (Rural)

T.K.Santhosh Vs S.K.Rajappan Achari

Indus Towers Limited Vs the S.I. of Police, Atholi Police Station

Joseph Santiago Vs State Ofkerala

K.V. Joseph Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police