Setting up of a mobile tower by the first respondent/M/s. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. at the disputed site which is stated as nearer to the residence of the petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the prior clearance by the concerned District Collector is very much necessary for granting the permit by the Local authority, as stipulated under Clause 8 of the Guidelines dated 21.08.2013. It was without any regard to the said provision that the second respondent/competent authority gave permission to proceed with the construction which was brought to the notice of the second respondent/Secretary, Thiruvalla Municipality by filing necessary proceedings. After considering the same and on realising the mistake, the second respondent cancelled the licence as per Ext.P2 order dated 03.03.2014. This was taken up in appeal by the first respondent/M/s. Reliance Jio Infcomm, by approaching the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram as per Ext.P3. Since the petitioner herein was not impleaded in the party array, she filed necessary proceedings and got impleaded herself as an additional respondent .
2. During the pendency of the above appeal Ext.P5 Government Order came to be passed on 15.03.2014, whereby it was stipulated that it would be for the Local Authority concerned to fix the parameters with regard to the minimum distance that is to be maintained and as such, the challenge raised by the petitioner and other similarly situated person, with reference to the minimum distance came to be watered down. Based on Ext.P5, Ext.P6 order was passed by the Tribunal setting aside Ext.P2 giving effect to the earlier order which was passed without any regard to Ext.P1.
3. Heard Mr. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V.G.Arun, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, Mr. S. Subhash Chand, Standing Counsel for the second respondent and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents 4 to 6.
4. The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent has been impleaded in the party array only being a co-respondent in the proceedings before the Tribunal. It is stated that the Tribunal while passing Ext. P6 order dated 20.08.2014, placing reliance on Ext.P5, did not take into consideration Ext.P7 Government Order dated 02.08.2014, whereby the relevant norms/guidelines were revised by the Government, superceding Ext.P5. This being the position, Ext.P6 order passed by the Tribunal is per se wrong and unsustainable in all respects and hence the challenge. It is also pointed out that by virtue of close proximity of the petitioner's premises to the spot occupied by the first respondent, there is violation of Rule 131 of Chapter XIX of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules in so far as the consent of the petitioner being the immediate neighbour has not been obtained. The specific case projected by the petitioner is that in view of the subsequent developments, particularly by virtue of Ext.P5 followed by Ext.P7, the matter ought to have been remanded by the Tribunal for fresh consideration by the second respondent/Local authority.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent/Local Authority submits that the said respondent is ready to consider the matter with reference to the relevant norms/guidelines issued by the Government/competent authority.
6. In the said circumstance, Ext.P6 order passed by the Tribuanl is set aside and the second respondent/Local Authority is directed to reconsider the matter with regard to the application preferred by the first respondent for granting permit in accordance with law, also with reference to Exts.P5, P7 and such other relevant orders, which govern the field. The proceedings as above, shall be finalised after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and such other interested parties if any, which shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent/Local Authority for further steps. Status quo shall be maintained till such time.
7. By virtue of Ext.P7, complaint, if any, preferred by the local residents will have to be considered by the competent authority (or the Chairman of the Committee, ie. the 6th respondent /District Collector.) Accordingly, there will be a direction to the concerned authority to consider the complaint if any preferred by the local residents and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after hearing the interested parties and the outcome shall be intimated to the second respondent within one month.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk