Disposed

Shila v. the District Collector

Kerala HC7 Feb 2020WP(C)/3674/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a tower permission granted by the District Collector in a populated area. The Court held the petition lacked material particulars and disposed of it by directing the Collector to furnish a copy of the permission.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Collector to supply a copy of the permission granted to the mobile company for erection of the tower forthwith.

Shila Vs the District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 18TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.3674 OF 2020(H)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 SHILA

¶8

AGED 58 YEARS W/O. PRAKASAN, POTTAYIL HOUSE, VENDARA, PERINGOTTUKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 565.

¶9

2 OMANA AGED 59 YEARS W/O. LATE DHAMODHARAN, OTTALI HOUSE, VENDARA, PERINGOTTUKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 565.

¶10

3 PREMSHANKER K. V. AGED 62 YEARS

¶11

KARATTUPAAMBIL HOUSE, VENDARA, PERINGOTTUKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 565.

¶12

BY ADV. SMT.MRINUAAL

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.

¶15

2 TANNIYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THANNIYAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR DIST.

¶16

3 THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY THANNIYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THRISSUR DIST.

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SR GP SRI RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C).No.3674/20

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 7th day of February 2020

¶24

The grievance of the petitioners in the instant case is that the grama panchayat had earlier granted permission to a mobile company for erecting telecommunication tower in a thickly populated area. A communication was given to the petitioners and affected parties to appear for a hearing on 3.10.2019 before the District Collector. However, the petitioners are not aware of the outcome of the above hearing. Since there was strong resistance from the public, the President of the grama panchayat had issued a stop memo to the Electricity Board to stop supplying connection to the tower. Information has been sought by the petitioners from the office of the District Collector who supplied permission to the mobile company for erection of the tower as to the grounds on which such permission was given.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of

¶26

the view that the writ petition at this stage is bereft of the following material particulars:

¶27

(i) outcome of the proceedings of the District Telecom Committee.

¶28

W.P.(C).No.3674/20

¶29

¶30

(ii) The permission granted to the mobile company which is purported to be impugned.

¶31

(iii) Photographs of the site to prime facie see that erection of the tower is in a thickly populated area.

¶32

Stop memo of the 3^rd respondent would not have the effect and the tower is provided electricity. However the grievance of the petitioners can be redressed by issuing direction to the 1^st respondent District Collector to supply a copy of the permission granted to the mobile company for erection of the tower enabling them to ascertain whether that permission is in accordance with the TRAI guidelines and provisions of the Telecom Act. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the District Collector to give a copy of the permission forthwith, on production of a copy of this order, enabling the petitioners to assail the same in accordance with law.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

kkb.

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE 28.11.2018.	REPRESENTATION DATED
EXHIBIT P1 (a)	ENGLISH TRANSLAT DATED 28.11.18.	ION OF THE REPRESENTATION
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE	NOTICE DATED 24.9.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 (a)	TRANSLATION OF N	OTICE DATED 24.9.2019.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE 28.1.2020	REPRESENTATION DATED
EXHIBIT P3 (a)	TRANSLATED COPY 28.1.2020.	OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE 30.1.2020.	REPRESENTATION DATED
EXHIBIT P4 (a)	TRANSLATED COPY 30.1.2020.	OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE	PHOTOGRAPH.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE	STOP MEMO DATED 1.2.20.
EXHIBIT P6 (a)	TRANSLATED COPY 1.2.2020.	OF THE APPLICATION DATED
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE 4.2.2020.	APPLICATION DATED
EXHIBIT P7 (a)	TRANSLATED COPY 4.2.2020.	OF THE APPLICATION DATED
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE 4.2.2020.	APPLICATION DATED
EXHIBIT P8 (a)	TRANSLATED COPY 4.2.2020.	OF THE APPLICATION DATED
	/True copy/

Shila v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shila v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Edathadan Granites Vs the State of Kerala

Manalayam Residents Association, Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

V.P.Paulose Vs the Geologist, District Office, Department of Mining and Geology

Sureshkumar.a Vs the State of Kerala

A.v.Johney Vs the Deputy Secretary to Government Industries (a) Department

Sajor Thekkil Venugopalan Vs Local Level Monitoring Committee