INDUS TOWERS LIMITED Vs. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act , is engaged in maintaining infrastructure for telecommunication services. It is contended that for improving the coverage in the Kollayil Grama Panchayat within the limits of Thiruvananthapuram District, the petitioner obtained a building permit and completed the construction of the telecommunication tower in the year 2008. Later, Ext.P3 ownership certificate was issued by the Grama Panchayat. It is contended that when the petitioner attempted to carry out maintenance/upgradation works including installation of new equipment in the tower, they met with resistance from some unidentifiable persons. When work was disrupted, the petitioner approached the second respondent and requested for protection to enable them to carry out the work by filing Ext.P7 representation. 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 and also under the relevant provisions of the Essential Services Maintenance Act , 1968.

(2.) The petitioner refers to Exhibit P4 communication issued by the Government of Kerala and Ext.P5 communication issued by the Chairman, Kerala State Telecom Disaster Coordination Committee, whereby directions have been issued to the District Administration and the Police to provide support to the telecom infrastructure providers and also to support the personnel for carrying out installation and maintenance and also to the passive infrastructure establishment and all other entities connected thereto. Instead of acting in terms of Exhibits P4 and P5, the Police are taking a lethargic attitude which gives an added impetus to antisocial elements to disrupt the work, contends the petitioner. They contend that due to the epidemic and containment issues, most of the people are forced to stay at home and work from home. Schools and Colleges are also closed, and the students are studying from home by utilising videoconferencing and other Internet facilities. According to the petitioner, infrastructure service providers provide the backbone and they are in the process of building infrastructure to cope up with the unprecedented demand for data to ensure that the entire population has access to Internet services for health, recreation and work without any disruption whatsoever. They would contend that Internet services like online payment, banking services, essential services etc. can be effective only if the Internet is nippy and fast.

(3.) It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to provide adequate protection to the staff and employees of the petitioner and entities of the petitioner including the civil contractors for the establishment of the telecommunication tower covered by Exhibit P1 site approval and building permit against any threat, obstruction or hindrance from any person.