Disposed

Railway Mens Co-Operative Building Society Ltd., v. District Telecom Committee

Kerala HC16 Nov 2020WP(C)/13801/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging mobile tower construction. It directed restraint on construction without valid Panchayat permission and empowered the Panchayat to regularize existing work after hearing the petitioner. Liberty was granted to challenge Panchayat orders.

What did the court decide?

3rd respondent restrained from constructing tower without valid Panchayat permission; Panchayat authorized to regularize/rectify defects after hearing petitioner.

Railway Mens Co-Operative Building Society Ltd., Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.13801 OF 2019(A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAILWAY MEN'S CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD.,RAIL NAGAR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY K.R MANI, S/O. RAGHAVAN, AGED 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 12, RAIL NAGAR, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD 678 002.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 DISTRICT TELECOM COMMITTEE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD 678 001.

¶11

2 AKATHETHARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AKATHETHARA P.O, PALAKKAD 678 008

¶12

3 INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, 8TH FLOOR, VENKARATH TOWER, COCHIN NH BYPASS, PALARIVATTOM, EDAPALLY POST, ERNAKULAM 682 024

¶13

4 A.NIZZAM ABDUL JABBAR, S/O. JABBAR, C/O. ABOOBACKEER, 1/124, NEELIKKAD, OLAVAKKODE,678 002.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S

¶15

SRGP BY ADV S GOPINATHAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.13801 OF 2019(A)

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 16th day of November 2020

¶21

This writ petition was filed challenging construction of a mobile

¶22

tower by the 3^rd respondent within the area of the 2^nd respondentPanchayat. This Court by an order dated 31.05.2019 stayed the construction of the tower. Thereafter, on 19.10.2020 the interim order was modified as follows:-

¶23

“ This Court granted an interim order dated 17.05.2019 against the construction of a mobile tower. This was taking note of Ext.P3. If the 3^rd respondent is complied with the necessary building rules and construction is in accordance with the building rules, the Panchayat not with standing the pendency of the writ petition shall consider the petitioner's request to complete the construction. Necessary decision shall be taken by the Panchayat within a period of two weeks after hearing the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent.”

¶24

It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the

¶25

Panchayat that the Panchayat considered the matter and found that the construction was not in accordance with the Building Rules and orders have been passed. It is also submitted that the orders have

¶26

WP(C).No.13801 OF 2019(A)

¶27

¶28

been communicated to the 3^rd respondent. In the light of above without regularising construction in accordance with the Building Rules, the 3^rd respondent cannot proceed with the construction of the mobile tower. With a liberty to the 3^rd respondent to seek an appropriate reliefs in a manner known under law, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶29

The 3^rd respondent is restrained from undertaking any construction without obtaining valid permission from the Panchayat. In the event the construction is being regulrised or validated by the Panchayat, the Panchayat shall hear the petitioner before passing such order. If any order is passed by the Panchayat, the 3^rd respondent is free to challenge the order of the Panchayat. The 3^rd respondent is also at liberty to seek regularisation of construction already made or rectify any defect pointed out by the Panchayat.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶32

SAS/16/11/2020

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

WP(C).No.13801 OF 2019(A)

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF RAMESH DATED 29-042004. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT, DATED 24-112018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27-11-2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7-3-2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STRUCTURAL STABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 26-06-2018. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STRUCTURAL STABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 5-3-2019. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23-3-2019. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Railway Mens Co-Operative Building Society Ltd., v. District Telecom Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Railway Mens Co-Operative Building Society Ltd., v. 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

Fr.Johnson Ayinikkal Vs Velur Grama Panchayath

M.Seevalamuthu Vs Mr.Gigi Kunnappilly

Sheela Chacko Vs Deputy Director of Panchayat, Pathanamthitta

Dr. Benny Augustine Vs the State of Kerala

K.P.Peter Vs Ranny Pazhavangadi Grama Panchayat

K.a.Abdul Rahiman Vs Biju Prabhakar I.A.S.