K. J. PAPPACHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking for a direction to the respondents to interdict the 8th respondent from erecting a mobile telecommunication tower in the property of the 7th respondent violating the guidelines issued by the Government and also for a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to dispose Ext.P7 representation in an expeditious manner.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that the 7th respondent has entered into a lease agreement with the 8th respondent, an infrastructure service provider, for erection of a mobile tower in his property. On the strength of the lease deed, the 8th respondent approached the 6th respondent Panchayat and obtained Ext.P3 building permit. Though a resolution was passed by the Panchayat that the permit granted to the 8th respondent is to be cancelled, the Secretary of the Panchayat refused to do so. In the said circumstances, detailed representations were submitted before the authorities concerned highlighting that the erection of the mobile telecommunication tower in the thickly populated area would cause health hazards. However, those representations were not considered by the respondents. It is contended that the District Telecom Committee is now in seisin of the matter and they have directed the authorities to ascertain as to whether the tower can be erected in alternate sites suggested by the petitioners. However, the 8th respondent, who is also aware of the proceedings before the DTC, approached this Court and filed a petition seeking police protection and on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court is proceeding with the construction. They contend that as the permit was granted by the Panchayat without taking note of the health hazards, the official respondents are to be directed to interdict the 8th respondent.

(3.) I have heard Smt.Sindhu Santhalingam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.