The decision clarified that telecommunication towers can be legally constructed without site approval as per the applicable building rules.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a local resident, is challenging the installation of a mobile tower by the 11th respondent, on top of a building. According to the petitioner, the building on which the tower is sought to be constructed has not been constructed in compliance with the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules . There is also a contention that the mobile tower has been constructed without complying with the provisions of law. By Ext.R11(a), the 2nd respondent Corporation had issued building permit to the 11th respondent on an application submitted on 31.03.2015. The permit was issued on 05.05.2015. On 08.01.2016, the Assistant Executive Engineer attached to the 2nd respondent Corporation issued a notice to the 7th respondent owner of the building on which the tower was being constructed, directing him to dismantle the tower citing the reason that the construction was without necessary permission, and stating that on failure to comply, actions stipulated in the will be initiated. This was followed by another notice dated 03.03.2017 wherein the building owner was informed that permission was granted for a “ground plus two-floor residential occupancy” and that on inspection it was found that the ground floor was being used as a shop and first floor and second floor were being used as a special residence. It is further stated that the nature of occupancy has been changed after obtaining the permit and that the side and rear setback are also not in accordance with Rules 24(4) and (5) of the . The 7th respondent was asked to show cause why action should not be taken. The petitioner submits that the Resident’s Association had submitted request before the District Telecom Committee regarding the violation in construction of the mobile tower. It is further stated that the mobile tower operator had in connivance with the 4th respondent, who is the Assistant Engineer LSGD Kochi Municipal Corporation, issued the building permit without referring to the earlier order. A copy of the application dated 18.01.2016 submitted by the mobile tower operator for the construction of the tower is produced as Ext.P4. Ext.P4 would show that the site was inspected, and the construction was found to be in accordance with the plan. The endorsements would show that they have been made in December 2016. The District Telecom Committee (DTC) by Ext.P5 order dated 31.12.2017 considered the grievance put forward by the Resident’s Association and rejected the same and permitted the installation of the mobile tower. On 17.01.2018, the Secretary of the Resident’s Association submitted Ext.P6 before the Collector, wherein it is stated that the Edappally Zonal Office of the 2nd respondent had cancelled the permit and rejected the permission for installation of the tower and this aspect has not been considered while issuing Ext.P4. It is further stated that they were not put on notice regarding the hearing before the District Collector. By Ext.P8 the District Collector had addressed the Resident’s Association stating that the DTC had considered the documents which have been produced by the 11th respondent and had issued Ext.P5 order after being convinced about the documents. It is further stated that the Resident’s Association may take up the issue before the appropriate authority. Petitioner submits that there is a difference in the views taken by the different zonal offices of the 2nd respondent on the issue and the DTC cannot overlook those aspects. The Secretary of the Resident’s Association had approached the State Telecom Committee, challenging the order of the District Telecom Committee on 10.04.2018 as evidenced by Ext.P9. The Secretary had also approached this Court by filing WPC No.14337/2018, which was disposed of by judgment Ext.P11 directing the State Level Telecom Committee to consider the appeal and pass final orders. On 18.09.2019, the District Telecom Committee issued Ext.P12 rejecting the complaint filed by the Resident’s Associ