Allowed

Indus Towers Limited, v. the District Police Chief

Kerala HC11 Sept 2020WP(C)/17597/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a telecom company, filed a writ petition seeking protection for workers during tower upgradation after facing obstructions. During the hearing, counsel reported that the interim order granted in July was complied with by the respondents, and effective protection was provided. Consequently, the Court made the interim order absolute and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The interim order dated 25.7.2020 granting protection to the petitioner is confirmed and made absolute; petition is effectively closed.

Indus Towers Limited, Vs the District Police Chief — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 20TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.17597 OF 2020(Y)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, 8TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWER, PALARIVATTOM-682 024 (REP BY ITS HEAD-LEGALMR.RAJKUMAR, PAVOTHIL).

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-690 533.

¶11

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 012.

¶12

SRI KP HARISH SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.17597 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner is a Company offering passive infrastructure services to Telecom operators and other wireless service providers. For the purpose of rendering support to various service providers, the petitioner had rolled out a telecom tower within the limits of Sasthamangalam Village which is covered under Exhibit P1 occupancy certificate. For enhancing the quality of the network and for 4G upgradation, the petitioner requires to carry out urgent upgradation works in the above tower. The petitioner refers to Ext.P2 communication issued by the Government by which sanction has been accorded for upgradation. However, obstructions were caused by certain unruly elements and left with no alternative, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P3 representation before the 1^st respondent seeking necessary aid and assistance for facilitating the upgradation of the telecommunication tower. Complaining of inaction, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to extend adequate and effective protection to the petitioner and their workers to carry out the maintenance, upgradation, and installation of equipments in the telecom tower covered under Exhibit P1 occupancy certificate.

¶18

WP(C).No.17597 OF 2020

¶19

¶20

When this matter had come up for admission on 25.7.2020, this

¶21

Court had granted an interim order as prayed for.

¶22

Today when the matter was taken up, Sri.P.Deepak, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in terms of the interim order, the petitioner has been able to carry on with the work without obstruction. It is submitted that the petitioner is proceeding with the construction after obtaining all necessary permits and licenses and that there is no interdiction from any court of law or any other authority.

¶23

The learned Government pleader submitted that effective protection is being granted to the petitioner to carry out the upgradation works.

¶24

In view of the said submission, this Writ Petition is closed by making the interim order absolute.

¶25

SD/-

¶26

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

DSV

¶29

WP(C).No.17597 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶33

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 20/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶34

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SENIOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CTSD COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM-682 020 DATED 1/4/2020.

¶35

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/07/2020 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶36

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶37

NIL

¶38

//TRUE COPY//

¶39

P.A TO JUDGE

Indus Towers Limited, v. the District Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indus Towers Limited, v. the District Police Chief

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

Queens Hotel Vs the Excise Commissioner

Queens Hotel Vs the Excise Commissioner

Radhakrishnan Vs the Commissioner of Police

U.K.Santhoshkumar Vs City Police Commissioner

Kalathingal Eshaque, Vs the District Collector

Jithin Shankar K. Vs the District Police Chief, Kozhikode