Disposed

M/S.Indus Towers Ltd. v. the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram

Kerala HC2 Apr 2013WP(C)/826/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a telecom company, sought police protection for constructing a mobile tower against obstruction by locals alleging health hazards. Court noted construction was completed. Petition allowed to operate tower subject to obtaining necessary generator permits. Dissolved by operation of law upon completion of construction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to operate the tower as per law and close the Writ Petition.

M/S.Indus Towers Ltd. Vs the Superintendent of Police… — Quashing and FIR | 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

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2013/12TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶6

WP(C).No. 826 of 2013 (C)

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

M/S.INDUS TOWERS LTD., 8TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS, NH BYE PASS, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD LEGAL PREMAKRISHNAN NAIR M.N.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM 676 505.

¶12

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 679 322.

¶13

3. SIVAN, S/O.KUNJIPARAYAN, AKKARA HOUSE, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., 679 322. THEKKINKODE, VATTAPPARA.

¶14

4. RIYAS K.,KONATH HOUSE, PERINTHALMANNA P.O 679 322, THEKKINKODE, VATTAPPARA.

¶15

5. PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY, PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 679 322.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED SHAH

¶18

R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Kss

¶21

WPC.NO.826/2013 C

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.BA-418/12-13 DATED 10.12.12.

¶25

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DT. 28.11.2012. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15.12.2012.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

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

¶32

---------------------------------------------W.P.(C). NO. 826 OF 2013 C

¶33

Dated this the 2nd April, 2013

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

K.M. Joseph, J.

¶36

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶37

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to afford adequate and effective police protection for construction of mobile transmission tower in Survey No.166 in Perinthalmanna Village, Perinthalmanna Taluk by the petitioner against the illegal and unwarranted threats from respondents 3 and 4 and their men and agents.

¶38

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to give adequate and effective police protection to the life and property of the employees employed in the construction site in Survey No.166 in Perinthalmanna Village, Perinthalmanna

¶39

WP(C).NO.826/13 C 2

¶40

Taluk and also to provide adequate police protection to the property of the petitioner.

¶41

iii) Issue direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate appropriate action against respondents 3 and 4, their men and agents in accordance with law for committing the illegal acts and unlawful obstruction causing loss, destruction and damage to the petitioner's business.”

¶42

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

¶43

Petitioner is a private limited company and is mainly engaged

¶44

in the field of providing telecommunication and related services. Ext.P1 building permit is issued for the construction of mobile tower in Survey No.166 in Perinthalmanna Village, Perinthalmanna Taluk. When the construction work started, people under respondents 3 and 4 are obstructing the construction alleging unfounded reason, ie. the health hazard. A group of persons, including some anti social elements of the locality, under the leadership of respondents 3 and 4 have forcefully obstructed the construction of the mobile tower undertaken by the petitioner. The said people reached the construction site and prevented the

¶45

WP(C).NO.826/13 C

¶46

¶47

ingress and egress of vehicles which were required to be unloaded or moved out. Petitioner immediately approached the 2^nd respondent and filed Ext.P3 complaint and requested for protection to the life of the employees of the petitioner and the property. Respondents 3 and 4 are making problems and creating law and order illegally and unnecessarily. But, the 2^nd respondent has not taken any action on Ext.P3 complaint of the petitioner and their silence has prompted the respondents 3 and 4 and other anti social elements to continue with their illegal acts. The life of the employees at the work site and property of the petitioner are in danger until adequate and effective police protection is provided for the peaceful functioning of the unit and also for construction of mobile tower. Till this date, no action has been taken by the 2^nd respondent against the illegal acts. Hence this Writ Petition.

¶48

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 and also the learned Government Pleader.

¶49

We have passed an interim order and pursuant to the same,

¶50

the petitioner has put up the construction. It is submitted by the

¶51

WP(C).NO.826/13 C

¶52

¶53

learned counsel for the petitioner that the construction of the tower

¶54

is completed. Learned Government Pleader would submit that there is no tower within one kilometre of the tower put up by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as far as generator is concerned, it will be installed only after getting permission from the Pollution Control Board and permit required under Section 448 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. We record the said submission and we permit the petitioner to operate the tower as per law and close the Writ Petition. As far as antenna is concerned, necessarily the petitioner must comply with the norms issued from time to time.

Sd/=

K. M. JOSEPH

JUDGE

Sd/=

K. RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGE

kbk.

//True copy//

M/S.Indus Towers Ltd. v. the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Indus Towers Ltd. v. the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram

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

South Travancore Distilleries and Allied Products Vs State of Kerala

Alappuzha Anantha Narayanapuram Thuravoor Thirumala Devaswom Vs Tahsildar, Kozhenchery Taluk Office

Bhaskaran.K. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Anchalummoodu

G.Valsalakumari Vs Circle Inspector of Police

K.S.Mohanan Pillai Vs the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta

Binu Paul Vs State of Kerala