K.M. Joseph, J.

1. In these batch of writ petitions certain common questions arise and we deem it appropriate to dispose of the cases by the following common judgment.

2. Petitioners are either service providers or infrastructure providers or agreement holders with the infrastructure holders. The controversy arises on account of obstruction to the construction of mobile towers and in many cases, obstruction to construction of towers for their operation and they seek police protection to aid them.

3. This issue had engaged the attention of this Court earlier. Divergent views were expressed by this Court in the decision in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat (2006 (4) KLT 695) (hereinafter referred to as the "Reliance case"), Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Circle Inspector Of Police (2008 (4) KLT 713) and Dishnet Wireless Limited v. Circular Inspector of Police (2009 (1) KHC 781). On noticing the divergent views, a Division Bench of this Court referred the following two questions to the Full Bench:

"(1) Whether the construction of a Mobile Base Station by itself will give rise to a dispute of civil nature, merely for the reason that a section of the public apprehends that it may cause some health hazards and whether a larger question of this nature as to whether such Mobile Base Station could cause any health hazards could be decided in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2) If the petitioners have obtained licence in accordance with the relevant statute in force and when they start functioning of a Mobile Base Station, can anybody cause any physical obstruction to such work, without raising a dispute and seeking remedies available to them under law, and in case, any such physical obstructions is caused, is not the Police bound to act and whether in the absence, this Court could issue necessary directions to the Police."

Subsequently, another Division Bench felt that two more points require consideration by the Full Bench and sought to clarify the following two points:

"(1) Whether this Court can exercise the jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to the police, as if this Court is hearing a suit for mandatory injunction and whether the objection taken to the same in para 8 of Sadananda Bai's case (supra) and para 8 of Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd's case (supra) is sustainable?

(2) When, for causing obstruction to the construction of a mobile phone tower, the petitioners have an alternative effective remedy of filing a civil suit, is it a proper exercise of discretion by this Court to entertain the Writ Petitions and advise the respondents to invoke the alternative remedies available to them?"

The Full Bench answered the questions in the decision in Reliance Telecommunications Ltd. v. S. I. of Police (ILR 2010 (2) Ker. 592) (hereinafter referred to as the Full Bench decision) as follows:

"33. Points sought to be clarified as per the reference order dated 24-3-2009 in W.P.(C). No.6433/2009 and connected cases are answered in the above background as follows: The construction of a Mobile Base Station by itself will not give rise to a dispute purely of civil nature, to be relegated to a civil court, merely for the reason that a section of the public apprehends that it may cause some health hazards. Whether a larger question of this nature, as to whether such Mobile Base Station could cause any health hazard, could be decided in a petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, there cannot be any legal bar to such a course in appropriate cases, where sufficient materials are provided as to the scientific studies and norms/guidelines prescribed by the Government/Licensing authorities in this regard; which situation is conspicuously absent in the instant cases.

If the petitioners have obtained all requisite licences/permits in accordance with the relevant statutes/orders/notifications in force and start construction/functioning of a Mobile