K. Harilal, J.

1. Is an unregistered document which is required to be registered under S.17 of the Registration Act an invalid document for all purposes? If not what are the purposes for which such document can be availed of? These are the larger issues that arise for consideration in this Writ Petition.

2. Briefly put, the facts of the case is as follows:

The Petitioner is a leading Mobile Tower Company in India incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Ext.P1 is the certificate of incorporation issued by the Assistant Registrar of Companies. The company is a registered infrastructure provided duly licensed by the Department of Telecommunication. Ministry of Communications & I.T., Government of India engaged in the business of providing telecommunication infrastructure which includes erection of towers for various mobile telecommunication service providers. Ext.P3 is a copy of the registration certificate issued by the Ministry of Communications & I.T., Department of Telecommunications. The Company has been promoted under a joint venture between Bharati Group (Airtel), Vodafone, Aditya Birla Telecom (Idea) to render passive infrastructure services to telecom service providers.

3. The 4th respondent Panchayath has issued Ext.P6 building permit to the petitioner for the construction of Mobile telecommunication tower in the property owned by the 5th respondent situated in Survey No. 302/4 of Porur Village, Nilambur Taluk, Malappuram District. Ext.P6 is issued after complying with all the legal requirements and after being convinced that construction of tower will not cause any kind of inconvenience to anyone and the site is situated in an unobjectionable place and that there is no legal bar in making the constructions. But, when the petitioner started that construction work of mobile tower based on Ext.P6, on 25/10/2011, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P7 stop memo directing the petitioner to stop the construction of the mobile communication tower and to show cause whey the permit (Ext.P6) granted to the petitioner shall not be cancelled. Challenging Ext.P7, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 798/2011 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvanathapuram. The Tribunal by Ext.P8 order set aside the direction in ext.P7, which directs the petitioner to show cause against the cancellation of the permit. But the Tribunal confirmed the direction in Ext.P7 which directs the petitioner to stop the construction of the tower. The petitioner challenged Ext.P8 before this Court by filing W.P.(C).No. 13461/2012.

4. While so, the 4th respondent has issued Ext.P9 communication dated 13.8.2012 to the petitioner permitting the petitioner to proceed with the construction of the mobile telecommunication tower. Thus, there is no bar to proceed with the construction of the tower.

5. Pursuant to Ext.P9, the petitioner started the construction work of the lower. At that time, respondents 6 to 10 and their henchmen physically obstructed the work saying that they will not permit the construction work of mobile tower. Respondents 6 to 10 and their hencemen threatened the petitioner’s workers saying that they will be killed if they continue with the work of mobile tower. Thus, the petitioner is not in a position to carry out the construction work of the mobile tower. It is understood that respondents 6 to 10 are raising objections on the mistaken assumption that mobile towers will cause health hazards.

6. Aggrieved by the unlawful obstruction caused by respondents 6 to 10, the petitioner filed a petition before the respondents 1 to 3 requesting them to grant police protection to construct the mobile tower without any threat or obstruction from respondents 6 to 10 or their men under law. But respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any steps to remove the threat and obstruction and refused to grant police protection to continue the construction work. Filing of a civil suit is not an effective and adequate remedy in this case. Hence