Disposed

Tata Tele Services Ltd. v. Tribunal for Local Self Govt.Institution

Kerala HC16 Nov 2016WP(C)/10749/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP(C).No. 10749 of 2006 filed by Tata Tele Services Ltd challenging orders against operation of a Diesel Generator Set. Court closed the writ petition noting the tower had been transferred to a third party, rendering further proceedings unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed as the tower had been transferred to a third party; interim order deemed inoperative.

Tata Tele Services Ltd. Vs Tribunal for Local Self… — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/25TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10749 of 2006 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

TATA TELE SERVICES LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, S.L.PLAZA, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR EXECUTIVE BOBBY JOSEPH.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY, PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, NORTH PARAVOOR.

¶12

3. THE CHAIRMAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY.

¶13

R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANTHOSH PETER R2 & R3 BY ADV. SMT.RAGAM.S.MOHAN BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH, S.C

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

WP(C).No. 10749 of 2006 (D)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 17.11.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2005 OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE INDUSTRIAL PLANT DATED 27.06.2005 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ERNAKULAM.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 29.06.2005 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 30.07.2005 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 11.08.2005 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.11.2005 OF THE PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY.

¶26

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL NO. 1006/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT/OBJECTION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO. 1006/2005 DATED 24.01.2006.

¶28

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.02.2006 IN APPEAL NO. 1006/2005 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 15.07.2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.V.ASHA J.

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

¶37

W.P.(C).No.10749 of 2006

¶38

--------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2016

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

The writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P5, P8 and P11 orders and for a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 not to prevent the petitioner from operating the Diesel Generator Set in the premises in survey No.277/3-1 of Paravur village where petitioner had installed a telecommunication tower.

¶41

It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the telecommunication tower has already been transferred to a third party. In the above circumstances, the petitioner cannot have any grievance as against any action by the Municipality as against the tower. It is upto the person who is put in possession of the telecommunication tower to move any proceedings, if necessary against the respondents.

¶42

Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is closed. The learned counsel for the Municipality submitted that on account of the interim order passed in this case, they could not proceed with any further action. Since this writ petition is being closed, it is not necessary to clarify that interim order will no longer be in force.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶45

Tata Tele Services Ltd. v. Tribunal for Local Self Govt.Institution

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Tele Services Ltd. v. Tribunal for Local Self Govt.Institution

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Issac C.V Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

State of Kerala Vs St.Antony'S High School

Celine Jiji Vs the R.D.O & Others

Suresh Kumar C. & Another Vs the Kerala Water Authority

P.M.Mary Vs District Collector

Ouseph Antnony Alias Kochappu Vs the Assistant Engineer