Dismissed

Indus Towers Limited, v. Commissioner of Police

Kerala HC4 Jan 2021WP(C)/11294/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition by a single judge who held that the petitioner must approach the District Telecom Committee first before seeking relief in this court, directing the DTC to decide the matter expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach District Telecom Committee for redressal; Second Respondent to maintain law and order pending DTC orders.

Indus Towers Limited, Vs Commissioner of Police — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.11294 OF 2020(J)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, CIRCLE OFFICE AT VANKARATH TOWERS, 8TH FLOOR, NH 47 PALARIVATTOM COCHIN-24, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER HEAD LEGAL, RAJKUMAR POVATHIL, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. P NARENDRAN, RESIDING AT MIDHILA, THAMARAMULANGARA, TRIPUNITHURA P O.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.SATHISAN SMT.KRISHNA.G.NATH SMT.DONA AUGUSTINE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY, POLICE COMMISSIONARATE, REVENUE TOWER, ERNAKULAM HEAD POST OFFICE P O, PIN-682011.

¶11

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THOPPUMPADY POLICE STATION, HARBER, TAGORE RD, KARUVELIPADY, THOPPUMPADYP P.O, KOCHI, KERALA 682005.

¶12

3 DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION O/O. SR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, CTSD COMPLEX, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA P O, ERNAKULAM -682020, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL (TECHNOLOGY) KERALA LSA.

¶13

4 KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM HEAD POST OFFICE P O, PIN-682011.

¶14

5 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAND P.O., ERNAKULAM – 682030.

¶15

R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR R4 BY SRI.K.P.JUSTINE(KARIPAT)SC,COCHIN CORPN

¶16

SRI PP THAJUDEEN, GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.11294 OF 2020

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is engaged in offering passive infrastructure services to all telecom operators and other wireless service providers. The company has been issued with Ext.P5 building permit by the 4th respondent for installation of a tower in Sy. No.45/14-19 of Rameswaram Village, Ernakulam District. While the company was engaged in the process of establishing the tower, they are stated to have met with resistance from the residents of the locality. When work was disrupted, the petitioner approached the respondents 1 and 2 and requested for protection to enable them to carry out the work. According to them, no support was extended in spite of the fact that Telegraph and Telephone service has been declared as an essential service as per the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and also under the relevant provisions of the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1968.

¶22

The petitioner refers to Exhibit P4 communication issued by the Chairman, Kerala State Telecom Disaster Coordination Committee whereby directions have been issued to the District Administration and the Police to provide support to the telecom infrastructure providers and also to support the personnel for carrying out installation and maintenance and also to the passive infrastructure establishment and all other entities connected thereto. Instead of acting in terms of

¶23

WP(C).No.11294 OF 2020

¶24

¶25

Exhibit P4, the Police are taking a lethargic attitude which gives an added impetus to antisocial elements to disrupt the work, contends the petitioner. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to provide adequate protection to the staff and employees of the petitioner to proceed with the construction of the telecommunication tower on the strength of Exhibit P5 permit without any threat, obstruction or hindrance from any person.

¶26

I have heard Sri. P.Sathisan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶27

The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the District Telecom Committee has started functioning and in view of the directions issued by this Court in Indus Towers Ltd., Palarivattom v. Sub Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha and Ors [2014 (4) KLT 306], when an effective procedure has been provided for resolving all issues relating to installation or energizing of mobile transmission towers, the petitioner will have to exhaust such remedies.

¶28

I have considered the submissions advanced. This Court in Indus (supra) had held that it is for the DTC to consider all the aspects relating to erection of Mobile Telecommunication towers and take a decision. The learned Government Pleader submits that a decision can be taken in an expeditious manner. In that view of the matter, I direct the petitioner to approach the DTC for redressing their grievance and on submission of such representation, the DTC shall

¶29

WP(C).No.11294 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

consider the same with notice to the affected parties and take a decision as expeditiously as possible.

¶32

Till orders are passed by the DTC, the 2nd respondent shall ensure that

¶33

law and order is maintained.

¶34

This Writ Petition will stand disposed of.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

sru

¶39

WP(C).No.11294 OF 2020

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11294/2020

¶42

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF PETITIONER COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF PETITIONER COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF PAPER PUBLICATION IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 06.06.2020
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 06.05.2020
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 11.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF LETTER WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.05.2020.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01.06.2020.

¶44

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

P.A TO JUDGE

Indus Towers Limited, v. Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indus Towers Limited, v. Commissioner of Police

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

Mary Vs the Sub Registrar

Amose Vs the Sub Registrar - Meenachil

Pavithran C. Nair Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Malankara Syrian Catholicate Vs the District Collector

Malankara Syrian Catholicate, Vs the District Collector

Indus Towers Limited Vs District Police Chief