IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 17956 of 2011(T) 1. SHAJI MATHEW, ...

Petitioner Vs

1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, ... 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, 3. NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPALITY, 4. RAJESH, S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, 5. YESUDAS, S/O.CHANDRAN, 6. SUBHADRA, W/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, 7. RAAJI, W/O.JAYAN, 8. MANJU, W/O.VIJAYAN AASARI, 9. STATE OF KERALA, 10. UNION OF INDIA, 11. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., For Petitioner :SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW For Respondent :SRI.C.S.RAMANATHAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM Dated :08/07/2011 O R D E R PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -----------------------------------------------W. P. C. No.17956 of 2011 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 8th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J Petitioner is see ing police protection with respect to construction of mobile transmission tower, which is being Respondent

 

P1 circular issued by the 9th respondent such construction does not require any permission from the local authority. was the subject matter of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. The tower is being constructed for use of the 11th respondent and by virtue of Ext. 2.obstructed by respondents 4 to 8 and others acting under them. State of . the 3rd respondent herein. v. The legal issue regarding right for erection of mobile towers and the apprehended health hazards which may arise. Alleged obstruction is being caused by respondents 4 to 8 on the apprehension that establishment of the transmission tower may cause health hazards.

we are not inclined to entertain such apprehension.W. wherever there is establishment of transmission tower. No.17956 of 2011 -2- Kerala (2011(2). However. in which the self Government institutions were advised to ta e steps to find out alternate site. Learned counsel for respondents 4 to 8 had drawn our attention to the circular dated 16/5/2011 issued by the Government. KLT 516). 3. However. we are of the   stiff objection regarding   .S. Respondents 4 to 8 appeared through Adv.P. since the issue is covered by the decision cited above.Rajeev and contended that the erection of transmission tower will cause health hazards to the family and members of respondents 4 and 8 who are residing very close to the site in question.(C) No. C.18120/2011 before this court see ing implementation of the directives contained in the above said Circular. It is held that the establishment of transmission towers will not cause any health hazards and it could not be obstructed. It is further stated that 5th respondent herein had filed W. P.

we are of the opinion that the petitioner is doing the construction wor s in a legal manner and that the respondents 4 to 8 have no manner of right to obstruct such activity.17956 of 2011 -3- considered opinion that it is left open to respondents 4 to 8 to pursue remedies. if any available. Under such circumstances. Considering the aspects as stated above. 5. C. respondents 1 and 2 are directed to ta e effective steps to remove obstructions if any petitioner and to afford necessary protection for completing   caused to the construction wor being carried out by the       .W. respondents 1 and 2 are bound to afford necessary protection to remove obstructions if any caused and to facilitate the petitioner to complete the construction wor of the transmission tower. 4. P. No. Hence. on the basis of the above said circular and to pursue remedy against the circular which exempt the petitioner from the obligation of getting permission under the Municipalities Act or the Building Rules.

KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE   . PIUS C. K.17956 of 2011 -4- ns & dp /-     the wor in question. C.W. P. No.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful