Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 28581
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
REBY PAUL, – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT TELECOM COMMITTEE, – Respondent
WP(C)/24617/2021
FERHA AZEEZ, SMT.AKHILA SHOJI, SRI.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI T.V., SRI.G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR), SRI.APPU.P.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Fair hearing must be afforded to parties raising objections in administrative proceedings related to building permits.
Headnote:
Procedural Fairness - Building Permits - - Emergency Consideration
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged building permits for a mobile tower, arguing that objections from them and tribal residents were ignored during the decision-making process.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to be heard before the issuance of the building permit for the mobile tower.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of fair hearing procedures and held that decisions impacting residents must consider their objections, which were not adequately addressed in this case.
Final Decision: A fresh hearing through video conferencing is mandated before further action on the mobile tower.
JUDGMENT
These Writ Petitions are with regard to the building permits and permissions granted to the party respondents to erect a mobile tower in the premises made mention of in the impugned order.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that hasty steps were taken to issue permissions for erection of the mobile tower without considering the objections raised by the petitioner and the tribal residents of the locality. The learned counsel would contend that the impugned proceedings in W.P.(C) No.24617 of 2021 were admittedly rendered without hearing the petitioner who was the objector.
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner had been put on notice, but he did not appear and therefore was not heard before the impugned proceedings were issued in W.P.(C) No.24617 of 2021.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a hearing may have to be conducted in physical mode since many of the parties do not have the connectivity necessary to attend an online hearing. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality as well as the fourth respondent submit that an online hearing could be conducted since the facilities for participating in the online hearing will be provided by the respondent Municipality.
5. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that since the building permit is now been issued by the Municipality and since it is submitted that there is urgent necessity for a mobile tower in the locality, the issue requires an emergent consideration of the DTC of the first respondent. In view of the fact that the petitioner had raised objection and admittedly he has not been heard, I am of the opinion that a fresh hearing through video conferencing is liable to be conducted so that the apprehensions of the petitioner are also addressed before further steps are taken by the DTC.
6. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the DTC to put the petitioner on notice and to afford an opportunity of hearing through video conferencing and to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner or his representative as well. The third respondent shall take all necessary steps to see that facility for video conferencing is arranged so that the petitioner can also attend the hearing through video conferencing. Appropriate steps shall be taken to put the petitioner on notice and to hear him by video conferencing within two weeks and orders shall be passed after hearing the parties. To enable a proper consideration of the matter, the decision taken in the impugned order with regard to the mobile tower in question shall stand set aside. Orders shall be passed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
These Writ Petitions are ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE csl APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29945/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED
17/07/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
17.09.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE CONSTRUCTION EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF THE LANDSLIDE ZONATION AND FLOOD PRONE AREA MAPS RESPONDENTS' DOCUMENTS:
Annexure R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
16.10.2019 Annexure R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 17.10.2019 CONVENED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
Annexure R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 24.10.2019.
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24617/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 17/07/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND SLIDE ZONATION MAP, KERALA STATE ISSUED BY THE STATE EMERGENCY OPERATION CENTRE (SEOC), DEPARTMENT OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FLOOD PRONE AREA MAP, KERALA STATE ISSUED BY THE STATE EMERGENCY OPERATION CENTRE (SEOC), DEPARTMENT OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION D
