JUDGMENT K. Harilal, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is a private limited company, engaged in the business of erecting telecommunication towers to various telecommunication companies. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is under an obligation of erecting new mobile tower in survey No.30 SY 2 Pt in Perumbavoor Village, Perumbavoor Municipality, Kunnathunad Taluk, Ernakulam, District, on behalf of M/s. Indus Towers, a registered infrastructure provider, category-I (IP-1). M/s. Indian Tower is in the business of establishment, maintenance and provision of passive telecommunication infrastructure by virtue of the registration granted by the Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and IT, Government of India. The 4th respondent on behalf of the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P1 permit for the construction of the said telecommunication tower under Rule II (3) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules after inspecting the site. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, on 24.4.2012 when the petitioner’s employees were about to start the work, the respondents 5 and 6 along with their henchmen obstructed the construction of the work and threatened the workers with physical harm, in case they attempted to continue with the work. Though the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 complaint before the 1st respondent has not taken any action to prevent the illegal intervention and threat and also to provide adequate police protection to continue the construction work. 3. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that there is wilfull suppression of material fact in the writ petition. The lessor, one Abubacker has approached the 5th respondent complaining that his consent was obtained deceptively and he has sought his help to get freed from the cluches of deceptive document executed in favour of the petitioner. Abubacker alleged that tough his signature was taken in the lease agreement, Indus Tower Company did not return the counter signed copy to him. The so called consent letter is an unregistered lease deed made in violation of the Registration Act and Stamp Act Ext.R5 (a) unregistered lease deed is illegal, non est and ultra vires. Since Ext.R5 (a) is a compulsory registrable document, the 3rd and 4th respondents went wrong in relying the same and issuing Ext.P1 permit. The Municipal Engineer has no authority to issue Ext.P1 as the same is vested in the Municipal Secretary, after inspecting the site. Since Ext.R5 (a) is a compulsory registrable document, the 3rd and 4th respondents went wrong in relying the same and issuing Ext.P1 permit. The Municipal Engineer has no authority to issue Ext.P1 as the same is vested in the Municipal Secretary, after inspecting the site. The writ petition is bad for non-joinder of lessor, a necessary party. More over, the telecommunication tower causes severe health hazard as radiation is being emitted frequently and it would have effect upon the neighbouring locality. 4. In the additional counter affidavit, the 5th respondent contended that, absence of Ext.R5 (a) lease deed in Municipal record is nothing other than suppression of material record. A reading of Ext.R3 (a) in its entirety reveals the characteristics of a lease deed and the building permit procured on that basis is illegal and invalid. 5. In the reply affidavit and additional reply affidavit, the petitioner contended that 5th respondent is obstructing the construction work due to political vendetta with the existing governing body of the Municipality. The contention raised by the 5th respondent allegedly on behalf of the lessor, arises out of a private transaction, to which the 5th respondent has neither knowledge nor right to interfere. He denied the allegation that the permit has been issued without site inspection. Respondents 3 and 4 granted permit following all legal formalities of the statutory requirements. 6. The petitioner has filed an additional reply affidavit contending as follows: “It is true that the company had passed on a format of the lease agreement to the owner of the property for perusal of the terms and conditions of the agreement. The registration will be done after paying requisite stamp duty only after completion of the construction work as the company is facing interference of a faction of common public who are being misguided by politically motivated people. In almost all the cases the Panchayat or Municipality grants building permit being satisfied with the documents produced and after site visit. The building permit for telecommunication tower is being granted after receiving special fee of Rs.10,000/-. But immediately after issuance of building permit the Panchayat/Municipality cancels the building permit or issues stop memo without even notice to the company, stating the reason of public protest. The building permit for telecommunication tower is being granted after receiving special fee of Rs.10,000/-. But immediately after issuance of building permit the Panchayat/Municipality cancels the building permit or issues stop memo without even notice to the company, stating the reason of public protest. The registration of ease deed will be competed only after the completion of the tower as there is no provision to refund the stamp duty and registration charge even though the site is abandoned. M/s. Indus Towers have erected close to 1100 telecommunication towers across Kerala and 99% of the lease deeds relating to these towers have been registered paying necessary stamp duty and registration charges. The company has registered lease deeds in the Municipal Area of Perumbavoor after completion of construction.” Ext.P4 is the copy of the registered deed executed to the case of another tower. 7. The 3rd respondent has filed a statement contending as follows: “The application was accompanied by the requisite documents prescribed under Rule 141 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, M/s. Indus Towers Ltd. had produced consent letter dated 5.7.2011 issued by the owner of the building Sri.Abubacker granting consent for erection of the telecommunication tower. The Overseer of the Municipality inspected the site and verified the measurements. Ext.R3 (a) is the copy of the consent letter dtd.5.7.2011 issued by Sri.Abubacker, the land owner. While so, Rainbow Residents’ Association field objection dated 16.7.2011 against grant of permit for erection of telecommunication tower. In the light of the objection raised, the Municipality on the basis of Government circular dated 16.5.2011 called a meeting of the residents residing within 100 meters of the proposed mobile tower and the representatives M/s. Indus Towers Ltd. on 28.7.2011 and heard all the parties. The matter was placed before the Municipal Council and the Council as per decision No.20 dated 18.8.2011 decided not to grant permit. The decision of the Council was communicated to M/s. Indus Towers Ltd. as per notice dated 31.8.2011 issued by the Secretary. The order rejecting the application was challenged before the Tribunal for Self Government Institutions in Appeal No.715/2011 and the Tribunal by order dated 30.12.2011 set aside the impugned orders and directed the Secretary to reconsider the application for permit and pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by the decision of the Council, Councilors or Chairperson of the Municipality. The order rejecting the application was challenged before the Tribunal for Self Government Institutions in Appeal No.715/2011 and the Tribunal by order dated 30.12.2011 set aside the impugned orders and directed the Secretary to reconsider the application for permit and pass appropriate orders uninfluenced by the decision of the Council, Councilors or Chairperson of the Municipality. Thereafter the Secretary considered the application and building permit was granted on 14.3.2012 permitting erection of telecommunication tower and shelter. In the light of the permit granted by the Municipality, M/s. Indus Towers Ltd, is entitled to proceed with the work in accordance with the approved plan and permit. The objection raised by respondents 5 and 6 is not sustainable.” 8. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the concerned statutory authority issued permit to construct the tower, nobody has any right to cause obstruction to the work. Ext.P1 permit was issued by the Municipality invoking the power under Chapter XXI of the Panchayat Raj Act as well as ‘Chapter XIX of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. So long as the petitioner has the valid permit for construction issued by the competent authority and nobody has challenged it so far, the petitioner has the right to get police protection. According to the learned counsel, the issue relating to health hazard ha been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. State of Kerala, 2011 (2) KLT 516: 2011 ICO 425. The counsel further submits that in view of Sections 4, 27 and 29 of the Police Act, there is a duty cast upon the police to protect life, liberty, property and human rights. He further submits that Rule 141 of the Kerala Building rules mandates that application for permit shall be accompanied by documents to prove ownership only and the ownership document may be sale deed or mortgage deed or deed of agreement or licence or consent document. There is no statutory requirement to submit lease deed, and the document produced along with, the application to prove ownership is only a consent letter and lease deed would be executed and registered only after the commencement of the operation. There is no statutory requirement to submit lease deed, and the document produced along with, the application to prove ownership is only a consent letter and lease deed would be executed and registered only after the commencement of the operation. The learned counsel challenged the locus standi of the 5th respondent, who is none other than a Councilor of the Municipality, which issue dExt.P1 permit. The 5th respondent is challenging the permit with an ulterior motive best known to him alone. Out of 1100 telecommunication towers across Kerala erected by Indus Towers, 99% of the lease deeds have been executed, after paying necessary stamp duty and registration charge, after the completion of towers and in this case also, it will be done without fail. 10. The counsel for the 5th respondent, per contra vehimentally opposed the granting of police protection, on the basis of Ext.P1 permit issued by the Municipality. The counsel submits that the tone and tenor of the so-called consent letter is that of a lease deed, which requires registration compulsorily and creates an obligation to pay stamp duty. The counsel placed reliance on the decision reported in Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd. v. State of U.P & others, 2011 (89) AIR 752 in support of this contention. Since the Municipality Building Rules specifically imposes the duty to issue building permits on the Secretary, delegation of that power to Municipal Engineer is illegal and ultra vires. 11. The counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that Ext.P1 licence has been issued after complying all the statutory formalities under the Kerala Municipality and Building Rules. Further, the counsel submits that according to Rule 141 of the KMB Rules, consent letter of the landlord is also acceptable to prove ownership of the building. In the instant case, the petitioner has not produced the alleged lease deed to get, Ext.P1 permit. 12. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the counsel at the Bar. The larger common issue, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relating to health hazards that may arise out of apprehension of the people in the locality is resolved by Full Bench of this Court in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2011 92) KLT 516. The larger common issue, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relating to health hazards that may arise out of apprehension of the people in the locality is resolved by Full Bench of this Court in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2011 92) KLT 516. In that decision this Court held as follows: “The instance of any health hazards has to be established with reference to tangible materials and evidence has to be let in; for which, it could be said that the matter may require to be adjudicated before the Civil Court. But then, it is for the concerned party to plead and rove as to the specific thereat to the health hazards with reference to reliable materials and also as to the alleged infringement of any statutory prescription or violation of the norms prescribed. It is not for the petitioners to prove a ‘negative aspect’ that there is no health hazard. When the petitioners have prima facie established their right to construct and operate the mobile transmission tower by obtaining all the required licences, it is for the objectors, if any, to prove infraction of their right, if any, and to show the dis-entitlement of the petitioners to establish a mobile tower, by resorting to the remedy of approaching the licensing authorities or to approach the Civil Court or by establishing their right in the writ petition for police protection. If any such objection is found prima facie established, this Court can certainly decline to grant police protection or in case the respondent fails to prove their right by documentary evidence, could still reserve his right to approach the Civil Court, as the burden to prove any such infraction is on the objector who asserts any such right.” 13. In the light of this decision, the issue of alleged ‘health hazard does nor require any further consideration in this writ petition. 14. Strangely, the 5th respondent who is none other than a Councillor of the Municipality, which issue dExt.P1 permit for the constructions, vehemently opposed the construction of the mobile tower, contending that Ext.P1 is not a valid permit, since it was issued on the basis of Ext.R5 (a) lease deed, a document which should have been registered after paying stamp duty. Strangely, the 5th respondent who is none other than a Councillor of the Municipality, which issue dExt.P1 permit for the constructions, vehemently opposed the construction of the mobile tower, contending that Ext.P1 is not a valid permit, since it was issued on the basis of Ext.R5 (a) lease deed, a document which should have been registered after paying stamp duty. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lease deed is not required for obtaining permit and they produced a consent letter, which was one among several documents mentioned under options, required along with the application for permit. The counsel for the respondent Municipality also submitted that no such lease deed was produced along with the application for permit, as alleged by the 5th respondent. Going by Rule 141 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, it could be seen that consent letter is also acceptable along with the application for permit. If that be so, we are not inclined to embark upon an enquiry on this issue in this writ petition particularly in view of the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner will register the lease deed after completion of the tower in accordance with the law. Another contention raised by the 5th respondent is that the 4th respondent has no authority to issue Ext.P1 permit. Going by Section 50(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act,. It could be seen that, the Secretary may by order in writing delegate any of his functions to any officer or employee of the Municipality, who shall be bound to carryout such functions subject to directions of the Government. The learned counsel submits the Municipal Secretary has issue an order dated 6.1.2011 delegating some of his powers to the 4th respondent under Section 50(2) and that stands unchallenged. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the issue of Ext.P1 by the 4th respondent. Thus none of the contentions are sustainable and hence liable to be rejected. 15. Going by para 4 to 6, it could be seen that 5th respondent impliedly admitted that, he interfered at the request of land owner Sri Abubacker, mobilized local people and caused obstruction to the construction of the tower, for which Municipality has issued Ext.P1 permit. It means that he along with local people openly challenged the permit issued by the Municipality, of which he is also Councillor. This act from the part of the 5th respondent,. It means that he along with local people openly challenged the permit issued by the Municipality, of which he is also Councillor. This act from the part of the 5th respondent,. Who is none other than the Councillor of the municipality which issued Ext.P1 is a sufficient circumstance warranting interference of this Court by providing adequate police protection. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, the reason for which he challenged Ext.P1 may have arisen out of private transaction between the petitioner and landowner Sri. Abubacker. Therefore, we find that there is no bonafide to challenging Ext.P1 permit by 5th respondent, who is a stranger to the transaction between the petitioner and landowner. 16. In view of the foregoing discussions, the question to be considered is whether the petitioner has the right to get police protection invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The protection is sought for construction of a mobile tower which forms a part of the establishment, maintenance and provision of telecommunication infrastructure, which has been undertaken by the principle employer. The activity for which the protection is sought for, is to establish a business activity, coining under fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. In the decision reported in Essar Telecom Infrastructure v. C.I of Police. Angamali 2010 (2) KHC 445::2010 ICO 571, this Court held that “in our considered view, correct in law, as it is not for anybody to cause physical obstruction to the vested right and interest of other citizen preventing construction/operation to the construction of the mobile tower carrying on under Ext.P1 permit. Under the Police Act, respondents 1 and 2 have the statutory duty to remove the obstruction caused by the 5th respondent and his men. But they have not taken any steps to remove the obstruction. In such circumstance, this Court is inclined to interfere with the grievance of the petitioner, invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. Consequently, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to provide sufficient and adequate police protection to the staff and employees of the petitioner for carrying out construction and other works of base transceiver Station and its ancillary unit tower on the basis of Ext.P1 permit (No.94/2011-2012 dated 14.3.2012) issued by Perumbavoor Municipality as against the 5th respondent. In the result, this writ petition will stand allowed.