Indus Towers Limited vs Perumbavoor Municipality on 5 November, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Indus Towers Limited vs Perumbavoor Municipality on 5 November, 2020

Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

 THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 14TH KARTHIKA,
                           1942

                  WP(C).No.21022 OF 2020(C)

PETITIONER/S:
            INDUS TOWERS LIMITED
            REPRESENTED BY ITS CIRCLE LEGAL HEAD (KERALA)
            RAJKUMAR PAVOTHIL,
            VANKARATH TOWERS, 8TH FLOOR,
            N.H. BYEPASS, PALARIVATTOM,
            ERNAKULAM-682024.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
            SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
            SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
            SMT.V.T.LITHA
            SMT.K.R.MONISHA
            SMT.SHRUTHI SARA JACOB

RESPONDENT/S:

     1      PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
            MUNICIPAL OFFICE,
            PERUMBAVOOR-683542.

     2      THE SECRETARY
            PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY,
            MUNICIPAL OFFICE,
            PERUMBAVOOR-683542.

            R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN, SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP         FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME         DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.21022 of 2020
                                                      2




                                     W.P.(C)No.21022 of 2020
                          ---------------------------------------------------------


                                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a telecommunication infrastructure provider licensed by the Government of India. The petitioner submitted an application for a building permit for construction of a telecommunication tower before the second respondent on 17.01.2020. It is alleged that the second respondent has kept the application for over seven months and thereupon, informed the petitioner in terms of Ext.P1 notice that the Council of the first respondent Municipality has rejected the application. Ext.P1 notice is under challenge in the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. As indicated, in terms of Ext.P1 notice, what is informed to the petitioner is that the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit has been rejected by the Council of the first respondent. The authority to deal with applications for building permit is conferred on the Secretary of the Municipality, in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the rules made thereunder. Further, under Section 229B of the said Act, when an officer of the Municipality is vested with any W.P.(C)No.21022 of 2020 3 statutory power and function to be independently and solely exercised by such officer, the Council shall not interfere with or influence in the exercise of such power or function by the officer. Needless to say, the Council of the Municipality has no jurisdiction to deal with the application submitted by the petitioner [see Dharmadom Paristhithi Samrakshana Samithi v. Dharmadom Grama Panchayat, 2010 (2) KLT 194].

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P1 notice is quashed and the second respondent is directed to pass orders on the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of building permit in accordance with law. This shall be done within one month.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE rkj W.P.(C)No.21022 of 2020 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 20.08.2020.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court