Disposed

Indus Towers Limited v. the District Collector

Kerala HC7 Jan 2021WP(C)/9964/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the petitioner to approach the District Telecom Committee regarding tower upgradation issues, citing a prior judgment, and ordered respondent police to maintain law and order pending that committee's decision.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to approach District Telecom Committee; respondents 2 and 3 to maintain law and order pending Committee orders.

Indus Towers Limited Vs the District Collector — 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

THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.9964 OF 2020(U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

INDUS TOWERS LIMITED 8TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS, N.H.BYPASS PALARIVATTOM ,KOCHI-24, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD LEGAL, RAJ KUMAR PAVOTHIL,S/O. NARENDRAN, AGED 41 YEARS, INDUS TOWER LIMITED, 8TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWER, COCHIN NH BYPASS, PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY POST, ERNAKULAM-682 024

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S SMT.SINDHU S KAMATH SMT.ROHINI NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM-682 030

¶11

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-695 121

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ERNAKULAM (RURAL), TEMPLE ROAD, THOTTAKKATTUKARA , ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 108

¶13

SRI PP THAJUDEEN GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.9964 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

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 erected towers at Manjapetty and Marampilly within the limits of the Kadungalloor Grama Panchayat. While the company was engaged in the process of upgrading the infrastructure, they met with resistance from some unidentifiable persons. When work was disrupted, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent and submitted Ext.P3 representation seeking protection. 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.

¶19

The petitioner refers to Exhibit P4 communication issued by the ADG (Technology), Kerala LSA, by which the Administration and Police have been requested to provide assistance to facilitate upgradation of various sites. Instead of acting in terms of 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

¶20

WP(C).No.9964 OF 2020

¶21

¶22

staff and employees of the petitioner to proceed with the upgradation of the telecommunication tower on the strength of the permit without any threat, obstruction or hindrance from any person.

¶23

By order dated 15.05.2020, this Court had directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to ensure that no obstruction is caused to the petitioner while carrying out the work, which is required of him in terms of Exhibits-P2 and P4.

¶24

I have heard Sri. Krishnaprasad S, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

WP(C).No.9964 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

Till orders are passed by the DTC, respondent Ns.2 and 3 shall

¶32

ensure that law and order is maintained.

¶33

This Writ Petition will stand disposed of.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

DSV

¶38

WP(C).No.9964 OF 2020

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2020 G.O(MS) NO.49/2020 GAD

¶43

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24.03.2020

¶44

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04.04.2020

¶45

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 01.05.2020 FROM DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS

¶46

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 06.05.2020 ISSUED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶47

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶48

NIL

Indus Towers Limited v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indus Towers Limited 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.J.Stephen Vs State Police Chief

Ambika Devi T. Vs Biju Prabhakar , IAS

Arbaz Khan Vs State of Kerala

Unaisa Vs the District Collector

C.v.Radhakrishnan Vs P.S. Srrekumar

Blesson Abrham Vs the District Police Chief