INDUS TOWERS LIMITED Vs. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a company offering passive infrastructure services to all telecom operators and other wireless service providers. They state that they have applied for a building permit for the construction of a telecommunication tower in Survey No.12/1 (Re-survey No.95/19) at Vazhakkad village and Ext.P1 permit was granted. While so, the 4th respondent issued a notice to the petitioner to cease the construction activities. On receipt of the said communication, the petitioner is stated to have approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (for short, the Tribunal) and preferred an appeal. The Tribunal, by Ext.P3 order, stayed Ext.P2. The petitioner contends that, while the proceedings were pending as aforesaid, the complaints were referred to the District Telecom Committee (for short, DTC). However, the DTC, by Ext.P7 order, took a decision that the final decision in the matter can be taken only after disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. It is in the aforesaid circumstance that the petitioner had approached this Court seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to afford them police protection to carry out the construction of the telecommunication tower.

(2.) Respondent Nos.6 and 7 have filed a counter-affidavit. Along with other contentions, it is submitted that against the stop memo issued by the Panchayath, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by Ext.R6(d) order has upheld the order passed by the Panchayath. In that view of the matter, as on date, the petitioner has no valid permit to carry on the construction activities. According to respondent Nos.6 and 7, the construction is being carried out by the petitioner herein violating all rules and regulations and in that view of the matter, this Court will not be justified in granting an order of police protection.

(3.) The Panchayath has filed a counter-affidavit supporting the contentions of respondent Nos.6 and 7. According to the Panchayath, the contention of the petitioner that he has obtained a deemed permit to carry out the constructions is not correct. It is contended that the benefit of the Government Order in view of the pandemic cannot be extended to the petitioner herein.