The petitioners are aggrieved of the orders passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvannathapuram vide Ext. P8, whereby the appeal preferred by the second petitioner against Ext. P4 building permit issued by the second respondent has been rejected, while the appeal preferred by the first respondent against Ext. P5 stop memo issued by the second respondent Municipality stands allowed.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the setting up of a mobile tower by the first respondent, which according to the petitioner is causing much health hazards and such other adverse consequences. Though there arose public protest with regard to the setting up of mobile tower, the second respondent Municipality gave Ext. P4 permit to the first respondent without any regard to the actual facts and circumstances and based on misconception of actual facts. Because of the public protest in this regard, the second respondent Municipality was pleased to issue Ext. P5 stop memo. Being aggrieved of Ext. P5, the first respondent took up the matter before the Tribunal for the Local Self Government by filing an appeal. In the meanwhile, the second petitioner herein also challenged Ext. P4 building permit issued by the second respondent, wherein the first petitioner got impleaded in the party array. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal passed the impugned order, which according to the petitioner could not have been the proper course to be followed, in view of the law declared by this Court in Indus Towers Ltd. Palarivattom and Ors. VS. Sub Inspector of Police, Thodupuzha [2014 (4) KHC 81 (DB)].
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, competent authority [District Telecom Committee (DTC)] stands constituted to deal with the public grievance in connection with setting up of mobile towers. The course open is discussed by the Division Bench in paragraph 22 of the decision cited supra in the following terms :
“22. However, it is clear from the Government Orders issued by the Central Government as well as State Government, that they are concerned with the apprehension expressed by the public at large as well as the difficulties faced by telecommunication providers and it is in the said background that the Government has issued order dated 02.08.2014 to constitute DTC. The duties and functions of DTC as extracted above clearly indicates that the public who apprehends difficulties faced on account of the installation of mobile towers as well as the apprehension expressed by the Telecome Service Providers could approach the said authority for redressing their grievances. In other words, DTC has been constituted for the purpose of redressing all grievances of the stake holders including public at large. When an issue is identified by a service provider or an agency engaged by them for seeing up a MT Tower, of if there is objection from the people in the locality, the DTC can either suo motu or on an application any person involved, i.e. either the public who objects to the putting up of mobile tower or any official of the Government, service provider or infrastructure provider, adjudicate all such aspects and redress the grievance. The functions of the DTC is so wide that it may also consider any apprehension expressed by the petitioners by way of objection from the local residents in the locality. If it is found by the DTC that the grievance raised by the public are not genuine, it is always open for the DTC to direct the police to render necessary assistance for putting up MT Tower or energising the same.
4. This being the position, it was not correct or proper for the Tribunal to have dismissed the appeal preferred by the second petitioner and allowed the appeal preferred by the first respondent. It is stated that on the next day of passing Ext P8 order, the first respondent rushed to the scene and started further work for setting up the mobile tower. This made the petitioners to approach this Court challenging Ext. P8 order.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the rights and interest of the petitioners have already been taken care of by the Tribunal while passing Ext. P8 verdict. Paragraph 20 of Ext. P8 is relevant, which reads as follows:
“20. Hon'ble High Court has also observed that if the DTC has not been constituted, urgent steps have been taken to constitute DTC within a time frame so that the issues relating to construction of mobile tower and energizing the same can be considered in accordance of the procedure prescribed. The appellate forum, ie. The State Telecom Committee and their duties and functions are also made mentioned of by the Hon'ble High Court. So if at all the party appellants are in anyway aggrieved by the permit issued in favour of the appellant for erection of telecommunication tower and the remedy open to them is to approach the District Telecom Committee for redressal of their grievances. So also as has been stated by the Hon'ble High Court in paragraph 15 when a building permit has already been issued and the restriction imposed in terms of the Government Order dated 21.08.2013 has already been superseded by the Government Order dated 15.03.2014, it may not be possible for the party respondents to contend that building permit is invalid especially when the building permit had been issued in accordance with the statutory provisions under Kerala Municipality Building Rules. So at any rate, the relief sought by the party appellant to set aside the building permit issued in favour of the appellant cannot be sustained in law.
6. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent Municipality as well.
7. After hearing both the sides, the writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the parties concerned to approach 3rd respondent/DTC for redressal of the grievance with regard to setting up of the mobile tower. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent, that a petition filed by the first respondent has already been received and a notice of hearing will be issued to all the parties concerned, the proceedings as above are directed to be finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt a copy of this judgment sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd