Atc Telecom Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, vs Assistant Engineer,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 31, 2022

~6 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1463581

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1463581
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Amit Rawal
Decided On: May 31, 2022
Case Number: WP(C)/9576/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Atc Telecom Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd,

Respondent

Assistant Engineer,

Excerpt

.....19(b) of the indian telegraph act. it has been providing services of passive telecom infrastructure for telecom service providers and for that purpose, had rolled out a telecom tower in survey no.2/2of chathamangalam panchayath, poolakodu village, kozhikode taluk, kozhikode district in the property of shri.sridharan nair, building permit dated 05.03.2010 ext.p2. the aforementioned tower caters to needs of the public and telecom service providers. the electricity lines near to the tower site was drawn through the properties of the party respondent nos.5 and 6 namely mr.sashidharan t. and mr.pradeep prabhakar, with a single phase connection. but for the purpose of electrification of the tower site and for smooth functioning an application was submitted for providing wp(c) no. 9576 of 2022 -4-three phase connection. the matter was placed before adjudication as per the provisions of sections 10 and 16 of the indian telegraph act, 1885 before the third respondent - additional district magistrate (adm). private respondent nos.5 and 6 submitted their objection on the premise that it would affect their land and the agricultural activities already undertaken would be seriously affected and resulting into passing of the impugned order ext.p6 by the adm.2. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is already a settlement arrived at between the owner of the property and theobstructors in civil suit no.74/2011. therefore the objections could not have been entertained and rejected at the threshold. there would not be any serious threat to the agricultural activity as if powerful cable line is replaced with the existing, all additional lines has to beadded in the same route, thus, the impugned orderpalpably suffers from an error and is backed by the wp(c) no. 9576 of 2022 -5- flimsy objections of the objectors. adm was expected to apply the simple logic, thus the order liable to be set aside.3. on the other hand, learned counsel for.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL ST TUESDAY, THE 31 DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 9576 OF 2022 PETITIONER: ATC TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS WIRELESS TT INFO SERVICE LTD.) AND VIOM NETWORKS LTD.) ATC HOUSE, 65/1826-28, CHERAMANGALATH, SHENOY ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 17, REP. BY HEAD LEGAL, BABU PATTATHANAM, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT DEVARAGAM, MANALUDI, RAMANATTUKARA P.O, PIN 673 633. BY ADVS. P.SATHISAN DONA AUGUSTINE RESPONDENTS:
1 ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KATTANGAL 673 601. 2 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KUNNAMANGALAM, KUNNAMANGALAM, KUNNAMANGALAM P.O, KOZHIKODE , PIN 673 571. 3 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WAYANAD ROAD, CIVIL STATION, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE P.O, KERALA 673 020. 4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY CHAIRMAN, VAYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O, PIN 695 001. 5 SASHIDHARAN T, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THAROL HOUSE, ERIMALA, NAYARKUZHI P.O, KOZHIKODE 673 601. 6 PRADEEP, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THAROL HOUSE, ERIMALA, NAYARKUZHI P.O
WP(C) NO. 9576 OF 2022 -2- KOZHIKODE-673 601. 7 SRIDHARAN NAIR , AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), CHATHAMANGALAM PANCHAYATH, POOLAKODU VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, MALAYAMMA P.O, KOZHIKODE 673 601. BY ADVS. M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN K.S.RAJESH SRI B PREMOD, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 9576 OF 2022 -3-

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a Telecom Infrastructure Service

Provider registered with the Central Government and is a classified telegraph authority as per the notification issued under Section 19(B) of the Indian Telegraph Act. It has been providing services of passive telecom infrastructure for telecom service providers and for that purpose, had rolled out a telecom tower in Survey No.2/2

of Chathamangalam Panchayath, Poolakodu Village, Kozhikode Taluk, Kozhikode District in the property of Shri.Sridharan Nair, building permit dated 05.03.2010 Ext.P2. The aforementioned tower caters to needs of the public and telecom service providers. The electricity lines near to the tower site was drawn through the properties of the party respondent Nos.5 and 6 namely Mr.Sashidharan T. and Mr.Pradeep Prabhakar, with a Single Phase Connection. But for the purpose of electrification of the tower site and for smooth functioning an application was submitted for providing WP(C) NO. 9576 OF 2022 -4-

three phase connection. The matter was placed before adjudication as per the provisions of Sections 10 and 16 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 before the third respondent - Additional District Magistrate (ADM). Private respondent Nos.5 and 6 submitted their objection on the premise that it would affect their land and the agricultural activities already undertaken would be seriously affected and resulting into passing of the impugned order Ext.P6 by the ADM.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there is already a settlement arrived at between the owner of the property and the

obstructors in Civil Suit No.74/2011. Therefore the objections could not have been entertained and rejected at the threshold. There would not be any serious threat to the agricultural activity as if powerful cable line is replaced with the existing, all additional lines has to be

added in the same route, thus, the impugned order

palpably suffers from an error and is backed by the WP(C) NO. 9576 OF 2022 -5- flimsy objections of the objectors. ADM was expected to apply the simple logic, thus the order liable to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondents opposed the aforementioned prayer and submits that the order is perfectly legal and justified. The ADM has extensively examined the objections of the objectors including the reply of the licensee and therefore cannot be interdicted in the manner and mode as being objected.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books and of the view that there is force and merit in the submissions of the learned counsel representing the petitioner.

5. The pith and substance of Ext.P6 order under

challenge reflects that it is based upon total surmises and conjectures and also on the inspection dated 18.12.2021 that the route No.1 i.e., changing of the single phase line to three phase line would go through WP(C) NO. 9576 OF 2022 -6- the center of the properties of the objectors. This will affect their agricultural activities.

6. I am afraid that the aforementioned reasoning is wholly erroneous and unjustifiable much less arbitrary. There is already a route whereby single phase connection is being provided to the petitioner. Only an additional line or the existing line has to be replaced without changing the route. In this manner there cannot be any serious prejudice to the objectors for undertaking and carrying out the agricultural activities.

The impugned order also defies the logic. ADM is not required to blindly believe the reports of the parties i.e., the objector and the licensees, but once being assigned the role of an adjudicator, is expected to deal with the application/objection in a most pragmatic and reasonable manner which is conspicuously lacking in the present case.

For the reason aforementioned the impugned order

is set aside. Writ petition is allowed. Kerala State WP(C) NO. 9576 OF 2022 -7- Electricity Board is directed to provide the three phase connection on the existing route to the telecom tower within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.

Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE vv WP(C) NO. 9576 OF 2022 -8- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9576/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILIDNG PERMIT NO. BL 698/2009-10 DATED 05.03.3010. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR

LOW TENSION CONNECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA ELECTRICITY BOARD DATED 07.07.2021. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF 1ST RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.10.2021 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 06.11.2021 ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER OF 3RD RESPONDENT NO. DCKKD/9855/2021- D1 DATED 11.01.2022 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN O.S. NO. 74/2011 BEFORE THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT MEDIATION CENTRE DATED NOVEMBER, 2016 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Atc Telecom Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, vs Assistant Engineer, Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Amit Rawal