A.D.RAMESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved with the installation of a mobile tower on the residential building in the 9th respondent's property.

(2.) The admitted facts are that the 9th respondent has 1.5 cents of land, lying adjacent to the 5 cents owned by the petitioner. The 9th respondent wanted to construct a residential building in the said property. Only considering the pitiable condition of the 9th respondent; who wanted to construct a residential building in a small extent of property, the petitioner granted consent for the building to abut his boundary. This was in accordance with the second proviso to Rule 62(2) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 [for brevity "Building Rules"]. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 62 provided for a set back of minimum 90 cms. on one side and a minimum of 60 cms. on the other. The second proviso permitted the other side to have less than 60 cms. set back or even abutting the boundary of the adjacent property provided a consent is issued by the adjacent property owner. In the present case, the consent was issued by the petitioner and the 9th respondent constructed a residential building.

(3.) Subsequently, the 8th respondent was found to have made constructions on the terrace of the building constructed by the 9th respondent. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that there was a mobile tower being constructed therein. The petitioner along with other residents of the locality, then approached the District Telecom Committee [for brevity "DTC"]. The DTC considered the grievances raised by the petitioner and the other residents as per Exhibit P6. In Exhibit P6, the DTC found that the 8th respondent had obtained a certification dated 08.02.2016 from the Telecom Enforcement Resource and Monitoring (TERM), Department of Telecom. In that circumstance, the grievance of the petitioner and the other complainants that, there were other residential buildings and schools in the vicinity was rejected. One another objection raised by the objectors was, the building permit having been issued without complying with the Building Rules. The DTC in Exhibit P6 rightly found that the DTC does not have any jurisdiction to decide on the issue. The petitioner challenge the construction carried on by the 8th respondent over the 9th respondent's building.