K.M. Joseph, J.

Being connected these writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13402 of 2010 is the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) 14859/2010. It has approached this Court seeking issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ directing the Ist respondent to provide adequate police protection for the petitioner against unlawful obstruction caused by the 2nd respondent or by their men and for carrying out the erection of mobile tower as per Exhibit P2.

On the other hand, petitioners in W.P.(C) 14859/2010 purport to challenge Ext.P2 permit. The further prayer is for a declaration that Ext.P2 permit dated 9.9.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent for erection of the mobile tower on the terrace portion of building No.AP 243-250 occupied by the Ist petitioner without fulfilling all mandatory conditions under the Kerala Building Rules 1999 is ab initio void and inoperative and the 4th respondent is not entitled to erect any mobile tower on the building housing the educational institution run by the Ist petitioner on the basis of Ext.P2. A further direction to the 2nd respondent to take immediate steps to look into Exts.P4 and P5 submitted by the petitioners invoking the provisions of rule 16 of the Kerala Building Rules and to revoke Ext.P2 permit was also sought.

3. We will take up the pleadings of the petitioners in W.P.(C)14859/2010 since the decision to be taken in W.P.(C) No.13402 of 2010 would be consequential to the same. W.P.(C)14859/2010 is based on the following brief allegations: The Ist petitioner obtained a space of about 2000 square feet on rent in the 2nd floor of the building No.243-250 in Ward No.VI (now ward No.V) in Azhikode Panchayath in 2003, 2004 and 2006 in successive rent deeds with a length of 8 shop rooms from the 3rd respondent. The Ist petitioner is running a parallel college imparting instructions to B-Com and Plus Two students and tuition classes for school going students in the rented building. There are 600 students and 20 teachers in the Ist petitioner's institution. The aided school managed by the 2nd petitioner is situated hardly 10 meters away from the Ist petitioner's institution and is having a common boundary wall for the two institutions. About 2500 students are studying in the high school and higher secondary school managed by the 2nd petitioner. The 3rd respondent, the owner of the building has entered into an agreement with the 4th respondent, a telecommunication infrastructure provider to lease the terrace portion of the building housing the Ist petitioner's institution to erect a mobile tower with all accessories including generator vide Ext.P1. The leave and licence agreement is dated 28.1.2010. The 4th respondent obtained licence from the 2nd respondent to erect the mobile tower on the terrace of the Ist petitioner's institution vide Ext.P2. The 2nd petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 representation. Ext.P5 is the request submitted by the Ist petitioner seeking to revoke the building permit. Ext.P6 is a report in News Paper produced to show the instances of death of citizens due to falling of mobile tower or its parts. Ext.P7 is the copy of the report in another News Paper. Counter affidavits are filed by respondents 1, 2 and 4. Reply affidavit is also filed.

4. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.P.M.Pareeth would address the following arguments before us. Petitioners are running the educational institutions wherein several students are undergoing their courses. The grant of permit, in such circumstances, in favour of the 4th respondent is not sustainable. He would further submit that Rule 141 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules which deals with grant of permit to construct telecommunication towers has been blatantly violated. In this regard the sheet anchor of the petitioner's argument is based on the requirement of Rule 141 that the applicant must produce structura