Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHARATI TELE VENTURES LTD., H

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BHARATI TELE VENTURES LTD., H-5/12 v. KOMMACHIKALATHIL PATHUMMA, D/O.IBRAYAN - WP(C) No. 17608 of 2006(U) [2007] RD-KL 12445 (9 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 17608 of 2006(U)

1. BHARATI TELE VENTURES LTD., H-5/12,
... Petitioner

2. MANAGER,

Vs

1. KOMMACHIKALATHIL PATHUMMA, D/O.IBRAYAN,
... Respondent

2. P.V. KRISHNAN, S/O. KELAPPAN KOMARAM,

For Petitioner :SRI.SATHISH NINAN

For Respondent :SRI.PROMY KAPRAKKAT

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :09/07/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C) No. 17608 OF 2006

Dated this the 9th day of July, 2007



JUDGMENT

A mobile Telephone Company which was the defendant in a suit for injunction impugns in this Writ Petition Ext.P5 order of temporary injunction and Ext.P7 judgment of the lower appellate court confirming Ext.P5 by which an order of injunction is passed against the petitioner restraining the installation and energisation of a telecommunication tower. Mr.Sathish Ninan, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat [2006 (4) KLT 649] and submitted that the principal ground on which the injunction orders were issued and confirmed by the court below is that the installation and energisation of the tower will result in serious health hazards to the people of the locality. The said grant has to be turned down in view of the judgment of the Division Bench. Having regard to the principles emerging from Reliance case it has to be observed that the basic premise on which the impugned orders were issued by the courts below was wrong. This court on admitting this Writ Petition granted the petitioner through an interim order, permission to install the tower, but however, energisation of the WPC No.17608 of 2006 2 tower was held up. In fact it is thereafter that the Division Bench pronounced its judgment in Reliance case. I set aside the impugned orders and direct the learned Munsiff to pass fresh orders, having due regard to the principles laid down by the Division Bench in Reliance Infocom's case. A fresh decision on the issue will be taken by the learned Munsiff at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile I permit the petitioner to activate the tower already installed subject to the fresh orders to be passed on the IAs. The IAs shall be disposed of within one month of receiving copy of this judgment. But it is clarified that the finding in the judgment of the lower appellate court regarding the lateral support, a finding in favour of the petitioner has not been set aside. Only the finding which are adverse to the petitioner have been set aside.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

btt


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.