SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13287

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
VALSALAYAMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 616 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN, SMT.STEFFY V.J., SRI.JOHNY K. JOHN
For the Respondents: SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE, SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM, SMT.V.T.LITHA, SMT.K.R.MONISHA

A writ petition for mandamus is rendered unnecessary if the underlying project is abandoned.

Headnote:This judgment analyses the necessity of directing the respondents for consideration of Ext.P4 and for preventing the installation of a mobile tower by way of writs as per the applicable legal statutes. The petitioner seeks a mandamus pertaining to both the issuance of a stop memo and actions for legal protection. The court finds that the project for the mobile tower has been abandoned, thus rendering further directives unnecessary. Resultantly, the writ petition is disposed of as per the submissions made.

Table of Content
1. writ petition filed seeking directives regarding mobile tower. (Para 1)
2. no further direction required as project abandoned. (Para 2)

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 2 and 3to consider Ext.P4 immediately within a time which deems fit to grant by this Hon’ble Court;

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 2 and 3 to issue stop memo to 4th respondent by preventing the starting of erection of mobile tower till the consideration of Ext.P4.

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to take necessary actions for the protection of the petitioner and her property in connection with mobile tower installation.

(iv) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(v) Dispense with translation of documents in vernacular language.”[sic]

2. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submitted that a memo is filed by the 5th respondent and they abandoned the project to erect the mobile tower in the site in issue. If that is the case, no further direction is necessary.

Recording the memo filed by the 5th respondent, this writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top