ANTONY Vs. CHELLANAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of these two writ petitions are the same and therefore both were heard together and are disposed of by mis common judgment. For convenience, I shall refer to the rank of parties and Exhibits as referred to in W.P.(C) No. 7127 of 2009, which is the main case.

(2.) The 4th respondent is a Company conducting business as a service provider for mobile phone users. The Secretary of the 2nd respondent-Panchayat issued Ext. P1 building permit to the 4threspondent for constructing a telecommunication tower for installation of a Mobile Base Station. The Panchayat committee adopted a resolution dated 29-11-2008 to cancel Ext. P1 permit By Ext P3 communication dated 20-12-2008, the 3rd respondent- President of the Panchayat informed the 4th respondent about the said resolution and directed them to stop the construction of the tower with a caution that if they do not, the 4th respondent alone would be responsible for the law and order situation that may arise if the construction is continued.

(3.) It appears that on 31-12-2008, the Panchayat Committee discussed the same issue again in view of the request of the Secretary to review the decision dated 20-11-2008 and again adopted Ext P2 resolution to confirm the decision to cancel Ext PI building permit issued to the 4th respondent. However, that resolution was not communicated to the 4th respondent