Disposed

Bapuji.K.Thomas v. the District Telecom Committee

Kerala HC19 Feb 2019WP(C)/4269/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted directions to the District Collector to consider representations filed by petitioners against a mobile tower installation. The court ordered a notice to be issued to the petitioners and affected parties within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent (District Collector) to consider representations and issue notice to affected parties within one month.

Bapuji.K.Thomas Vs the District Telecom… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 30TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 4269 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 BAPUJI.K.THOMAS AGED 57 YEARS S/O. KC THOMAS, KOODATHINKAL HOUSE, ARUVIKKUZHY P.O., ANIKKAD, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686503

¶8

2 K.D. DEVASIA AGED 67 YEARS S/O K.M. DEVASIA, KURUKUNNEL, ARUVIKKUZHY P.O., ANIKKAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686503

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT TELECOM COMMITTEE, KOTTAYAM, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - 2

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - 2 3 THE RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LIMITED REP BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RELIANCE CORPORATE PARK, BUILDING NO.4, 5TTC INDUSTRIAL AREA, THANE, BELAPUR ROAD, GHANSOLI, NAVI MUMBAI, PIN - 400701

¶13

4 THE AREA MANAGER RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LIMITED, 32/2552-C, 2ND FLOOR, PUKALAKKATTU KARIYATTU TOWER, NEAR YATHRI NIVAS, OLD NH 47, MAMANGALAM, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682 025

¶14

WP(C).No. 4269 of 2019 2

¶15

5 THE MANAGER RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LIMITED, 16/118-M2, 3RD FLOOR, ADITHYA COMMERCIAL ARCADE, MAIN CENTRAL ROAD, NAGAMPADAM, KOTTAYAM - 686 001 6 SHEBIN VARGHESE PULIKKAL HOUSE, ARUVIKKUZHY P.O., ANIKKAD, PIN-686 503

¶16

ADV.SR.B VINOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 4269 of 2019 3

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This writ petition is filed seeking directions to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation preferred by the petitioners against the installation of mobile tower in the property of the 6 th respondent.

¶21

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an objection had been preferred as against the steps taken for the erection of mobile tower by the petitioners. Exts.P1 and P5 representations had been preferred before the District Collector.

¶22

3. Having considered the contentions advanced and hearing the learned Government Pleader as well, I am of the opinion that the representations preferred by the petitioners are liable to be considered in accordance with

¶23

law before orders are passed permitting the

¶24

energising of the towers.

¶25

WP(C).No. 4269 of 2019 4

¶26

There will be a direction to the first respondent to consider Exts.P1 and P5 representations with notice to the petitioners, the 6 th respondent, the local authority and any other affected parties within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶27

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

SD/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

ACM / 19.2.2019

JUDGE

WP(C).No. 4269 of 2019 5

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.2.2019 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶36

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶37

EXHIBIT P3 REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE SECRETARY TO THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT

¶38

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT

¶39

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.2.2019 SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶40

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Bapuji.K.Thomas v. the District Telecom Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bapuji.K.Thomas v. the District Telecom Committee

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

Mariamma John Vs the Manager

Sreejith Vs the Principal Secretary

Rakhi P.V. Vs Rahul R.

Mr.Sudheer a., Vs Assistant General Manager

Sylcon Trading Establishment, Vs Union of India

K.a.Joseph, Vs the Secretary to Government