Dismissed

Indus Towers Limited v. the District Police Chief

Kerala HC17 Nov 2020WP(C)/18590/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought police protection for the petitioner to construct a telecommunication tower after a building permit was issued but a stop memo was imposed. The Court found that the Tribunal had upheld the stop memo, rendering the petitioner without a valid permit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the plea for police protection and directed the parties to approach the District Telecom Co

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach District Telecom Committee within 15 days; relief of police protection dismissed.

Indus Towers Limited Vs the District Police Chief — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.18590 OF 2020(W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, 8TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWER, PALARIVATTOM-682 024 (REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD-LEGAL-MR. RAJKUMAR PAVOTHIL, S/O. P.NARENDRAN, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT MIDHILA, THAMARAKULANGARA, THRIPUNITHURA)

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF MALAPPURAM, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶11

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM-673 640.

¶12

3 VAZHAKKADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH

¶13

VAZHAKKADU P.O., MALAPPURAM-673 640, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

4 THE SECRETARY, VAZHAKKADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VAZHAKKADU P.O., MALAPPURAM-673 640.

¶15

5 THE DISTRICT TELECOM COMMITTEE MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM-676 505, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶16

6 SHAMSUDEEN E., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. MOOSA, ELEDATH HOUSE, OORAKKADAVU, KARUMARAKKADU P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 552.

¶17

7 ABDUL MUFEED C., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. SAIDALAVI, CHERIYA ELEDATH HOUSE, KARUMARAKKADU P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 552.

¶18

R3-4 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ R6-7 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN

¶19

WP(C).No.18590 OF 2020

¶20

¶21

SRI BIMAL K NATH SR GP

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No.18590 OF 2020

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioner is a company offering passive infrastructure services to all telecom operators and other wireless service providers. They state that they have applied for a building permit for the construction of a telecommunication tower in Survey No.12/1 (Re-survey No.95/19) at Vazhakkad village and Ext.P1 permit was granted. While so, the 4th respondent issued a notice to the petitioner to cease the construction activities. On receipt of the said communication, the petitioner is stated to have approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (for short, the Tribunal) and preferred an appeal. The Tribunal, by Ext.P3 order, stayed Ext.P2. The petitioner contends that, while the proceedings were pending as aforesaid, the complaints were referred to the District Telecom Committee (for short, DTC). However, the DTC, by Ext.P7 order, took a decision that the final decision in the matter can be taken only after disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. It is in the aforesaid circumstance that the petitioner had approached this Court seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to afford them police protection to carry out the construction of the telecommunication tower.

¶27

Respondent Nos.6 and 7 have filed a counter-affidavit. Along with other contentions, it is submitted that against the stop memo issued by the Panchayath, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by

¶28

WP(C).No.18590 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

Ext.R6(d) order has upheld the order passed by the Panchayath. In that view of the matter, as on date, the petitioner has no valid permit to carry on the construction activities. According to respondent Nos.6 and 7, the construction is being carried out by the petitioner herein violating all rules and regulations and in that view of the matter, this Court will not be justified in granting an order of police protection.

¶31

The Panchayath has filed a counter-affidavit supporting the contentions of respondent Nos.6 and 7. According to the Panchayath, the contention of the petitioner that he has obtained a deemed permit to carry out the constructions is not correct. It is contended that the benefit of the Government Order in view of the pandemic cannot be extended to the petitioner herein.

¶32

I have heard Sri. P. Deepak, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. M.A. Fayaz, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4, Sri. Anil Kumar M. Sivaraman, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7 and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶33

It appears from the submissions advanced that the Panchayath had issued a stop memo which was challenged before the Tribunal by the petitioner herein. However, during the pendency of this writ petition, by R6(d) order, the order passed by the Panchayath has been upheld by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with

¶34

WP(C).No.18590 OF 2020

¶35

¶36

law. I also find that the dispute with regard to the construction of the tower was kept in the back-burner by the DTC awaiting orders from the Tribunal. Now that the Tribunal has passed the order, it would be proper for the DTC to consider the issues in the light of the judgment of this Court in Indus Towers Ltd, Palarivattom and Others v Sub Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha and Others [2014 (4) KHC 81].

¶37

In that view of the matter, the petitioner, as well as the party respondents, shall approach the DTC within a period of fifteen days from today to work out their remedies in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Indus Towers Ltd . (supra) and the DTC shall take appropriate decision on the basis of the facts presented.

¶38

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

¶43

WP(C).No.18590 OF 2020

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED ON 25.2.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 3.4.2018. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.4.2018 IN APPEAL NO.227/2018. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.3.2018 IN WPC NO.10802/2018. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 2.8.2014. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 5.11.2014. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 29.1.2019. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 5.3.2019 FOR RENEWAL OF BUILDING PERMIT. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 7.5.2020. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.7.2020 IN WPC NO.12481/2020. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 18/07/2016 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PETITIONERS COMPANY. EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 12/06/2020 EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 15/06/2020

¶48

WP(C).No.18590 OF 2020

¶49

¶50

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶51

EXHIBIT R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE ON 31.3.2018. EXHIBIT R6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.15445/2018 DATED 28.11.2018. EXHIBIT R6(c) TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A. IN APPEAL NO. 227/2018. EXHIBIT R4 (a) CIRCULAR NO.88/RD/2018/LSGD DATED 23/7/2018 EXHIBIT R6(d): TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 27/10/2020 IN APPEAL NO.227/2018 PASSED BY LSGI, TRIVANDRUM.

¶52

//TRUE COPY//

¶53

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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balakrishna Pillai. P Vs Mathra Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 314

Dinil Dinesh Vs the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur

The Calicut City Service Co. Operative Bank Ltd. No. D.2777 Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Joy Vs National Highway Authority of India

Helena T.R. Vs State of Kerala

Dr. K. Renuka Vs Tahsildar (L.R.)