SHAJI MATHEW Vs. S I OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions to respondents 1 to 3 to afford police protection for the petitioner to undertake the work of construction, installation and operation of a mobile tower in accordance with Ext.P1 permit issued by the 4th respondent against any illegal obstruction that may be raised by respondents 6 to 12.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the tower is to be put up in the property of the 5th respondent who has consented to the same. Ext.P1 is a regular permit. Respondents 6 to 12 are raising illegal objections/obstructions to the undertaking of the construction in accordance with Ext.P1. Subsequently, the 4th respondent had issued a stop memo; but the Tribunal For Local Self Government Institutions by Ext.P5 judgment has set aside the stop memo. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to undertake the construction as per Ext.P1. Respondents 6 to 11 (the 12th respondent has subsequently been deleted from the array of parties) are not entitled to raise any objection against such construction. It is with these averments that the petitioner has come before this Court.

(3.) TELECOM Infrastructure (P) Ltd., v. C.I. of Police [2010 (2) KLT 762) (FB)] and Essar TELECOM Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KHC 171). No tenable objections are seen raised by the contesting respondents. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent only wants to clarify that the right of the Panchayat to take further action if there is any inadequacy/ violation irregularity may be left open. We are satisfied that the petitioner is entitled for an order of protection as prayed for subject to appropriate terms and conditions. In the result: (a) This writ petition is allowed. (b) Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to afford police protection to the petitioner to construct, install and operate the mobile tower in accordance with Ext.P1 building permit issued by the 4th respondent/Panchayat in the property of the 5th respondent. (c) It is made clear that the construction will have to be undertaken by the petitioner strictly in accordance with the terms stipulated in Ext.P1. (d) Needless to say that this judgment is issued subject to all observations and conditions in Essar TELECOM Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KHC 171).