RAVEENDRN Vs. CHOORNIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ appeal is filed by the petitioners in the writ petition challenging the judgment dated 22.10.2020 of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.9620 of 2020, whereby the learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition leaving open the liberty of the appellants to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment, this appeal is preferred. The following were the reliefs sought for by the appellants in the writ petition:

(2.) The paramount contention advanced in the writ appeal is that when the first respondent Panchayat granted building permit for the erection of a new telecom tower, the appellants herein initially filed a complaint before the District Telecom Committee headed by the District Collector, Ernakulam followed by another detailed complaint, evident from Exts.P10 and P18. However, the grievance pointed out by the appellants in respect of the installation of the telecom tower before the District Collector was not considered by the learned single Judge and mistakenly directed the appellants to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. That apart, it is stated that the Ministry of Environment and Forest had issued an office memorandum to all concerned Departments and specifically the Department of Tele Communication not to permit construction of new towers within a radius of 1 km of an existing tower and in the case at hand, a new tower is being constructed which is 5 meters away from an existing tower. Apart from that, there are 6 other mobile towers already existing within 450 meters radius and that too, in a thickly populated area. Other contentions are also raised pointing out that the permit granted by the Panchayat to instal the tower within the Panchayat area cannot be sustained under law. That apart, it is submitted that since the applications against the installation of tower are pending before the District Telecom Committee i.e., the 3 rd respondent, the learned single Judge ought to have directed the said committee to dispose of Exts.P10 and P18 representations submitted by the appellants.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the Grama Panchayat, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned Government Pleader, and perused the pleadings and materials on record.