TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED Vs. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P5 order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, is under challenge. Ext.P5 is a general order wherein the Ombudsman ordered that providers of teli communication service shall produce no objection certificate from the Automic Energy Commission so as to enable the Panchayat to issue licence to them for installation of mobile tower and for energizing the same.

(2.) Heard Sri.A.M.Shaffique the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.V.Kunhikrishnan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat and Sri.Mathew G.Vadakkal, the learned Government Pleader for the 4th respondent. Even though the 3rd respondent had filed complaint regarding the installation and commission of the mobile tower by the petitioner he has not entered appearance before this court for resisting this writ petition. My attention was drawn by Sri.A.M.Shaffique to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat ( 2006 (4) KLT 695). Paragraphs 5 and 8 were highlighted before me by the learned counsel. I notice that the issue is decided by the Division Bench in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) Having regard to the principles laid down in Reliance case ( supra), Ext.P5 cannot be sustained at all. Ext.P5 therefore will stand quashed. However, it is made clear that all the observations and direction in paragraph 8 of the Reliance Case which I quote as follows;