Petitioner challenged construction of a mobile tower alleging lack of permit and violation of rules. Court held that petitioner is free to approach the District Telecom Committee to ventilate grievances regarding the deemed permit status.
Writ petition closed; liberty granted to approach District Telecom Committee.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP(C) NO. 30611 OF 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 30611 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:
RUGMINI AMMA AGED 68 YEARS W/O. GANGADHARAN PILLAI, RAJESH BHAVAN, IVERKALA EAST P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM-691 001
BY ADV B.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
WP(C) NO. 30611 OF 2019
2
KADAPPAKKADA P.O, KOLLAM-691 008
BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR) SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.SABU PULLAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 30611 OF 2019
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
-------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.30611 of 2019
-------------------------------------Dated this the 11th day of July, 2022
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
i. “call for the records relating to the construction of the Mobile Tower by the 6th respondent in 2109 Sq.Feet of land in Re.Sy.No.724/3/2 of Kunnathoor Village, of the 7th respondent and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the permit of the 3rd respondent for construction of the Mobile Tower by the 6th respondent in the property of the 7th respondent in the Residential Area, in Ivarkala East Ward without obtaining permission from the statutory authorities.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 5 to desist the 6th respondent against the illegal construction of the Mobile Tower in 2109 Sq.Feet of land in Re.Sy.No.724/3/2 of Kunnathoor Village of the 7th respondent without obtaining orders from the Telecom
WP(C) NO. 30611 OF 2019
4
Committee strictly in violation of the guidelines for issuance of clearance/permit for installation of Mobile Towers 2013 without obtaining order or permission from the statutory authorities and the Provisions of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and Rules, 1994 Kerala Panchayath Building Rules 2011, without obtaining Structural Stability Certificate and various health hazardous.
iii. Declare that the Respondents 1 to 5 have absolutely no jurisdiction to issue permission for illegal construction of a Mobile Tower to the 6th respondent in 2109 Sq.Feet of land in Re.Sy.No.724/3/2 of Kunnathoor Village, of the 7th respondent without obtaining orders from the Telecom Committee strictly in violation of the guidelines for issuance of clearance/permit for installation of Mobile Towers 2013 without obtaining order or permission from the statutory authorities and the Provisions of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act and Rules, Kerala Panchayath Building Rules 2011, without obtaining Structural Stability Certificate and various health hazardous.
iv. Issue such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” [SIC]
any licence, mobile tower is erected by the 6th respondent. On
the other hand, the 6th respondent contended that there is a
WP(C) NO. 30611 OF 2019
5
deemed permit as per Rule 16 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules and based on the same, the mobile tower was erected. According to the petitioner, there is no permit and according to the 6th respondent, there is a deemed permit. If that is the case, the petitioner can challenge the same before the District Telecom Committee. This point is considered in Indus Tower Limited v. Sub Inspector of Police [2014 (14) KLT 306]. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder :
23. “Some of the party respondents has a contention that the construction of MT Tower is not based on the building permit. If there is any such violation, the party respondents are free to take up the matter before the competent authorities including DTC. 24. Having regard to the Government Orders issued as stated above and the power given to DTC, we are of the view that before approaching this Court, the petitioners as well as the party respondents will have to approach the DTC for the purpose of ventilating their grievances.”
WP(C) NO. 30611 OF 2019
6
approach the District Telecom Committee, if she is aggrieved. Granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Telecom Committee, this writ petition is closed.
All the contentions raised in this writ petition are left open and the petitioner is free to agitate all those contentions before the 2nd respondent- District Telecom Committee.
SD/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE
SKS
WP(C) NO. 30611 OF 2019
7
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30611/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 30/10/2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 30/10/2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE IVARKALA EAST WARD BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 13/10/2019 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF STOP MEMO NO.A7-5645/19 DATED 18/10/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO SMT. RENJINI RESIDENT OF THE IVERKALA EAST WARD EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF HE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSEL TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P5 NOTICE EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.14/2014/D DATED 15/03/2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R6(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE GO MS NO.14/2014/ITD
WP(C) NO. 30611 OF 2019
8
DATED 15.3.2014 EXHIBIT R6(B) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.DOT/KRL/6-14/DMCORR/2019-20/ DATED 24.3.2020 EXHIBIT R6(C) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. AS-25/1/2019OFFICE OF DIR (AS-V) DATED 21.3.2020 EXHIBIT R6(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.3.2020 IN WP(C) 33759 OF 2019 AND WPC 50 OF 2020 EXHIBIT R6(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2020 IN WPC 16601 OF 2020
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner must approach the District Telecom Committee before approaching this Court regarding the construction of a mobile tower.
Whether the alleged violation of building rules and guidelines by the mobile tower constructor warrants quashing of the permit at this stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Indus Tower Limited v. Sub Inspector of PoliceReferred¶44
Indus Tower Limited v. Sub Inspector of Police [2014 (14) KLT 306]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
RUGMINI AMMA
STATE OF KERALA
THE DISTRICT TELECOM COMMITTEE
THE KUNNATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
THE KUNNATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE
THE STATE
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
