AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order No.G1/3840/TPS/2019 dt.03.01.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 3rd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to cancel the said order and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
The grievance of the petitioner association is that the 2nd respondent is the owner of Plot No.27 and has entered into a lease agreement with the 3rd respondent for erection of a Cell Tower in its plot. The 3rd respondent is stated to have submitted an application to the Municipal Corporation, Badangpet, Ranga Reddy District on 16.12.2019 seeking permission for installation of GBT (TIT) Tower and other related equipments for broadband services in Plot No.27 and permission was also accorded vide order dt.03.01.2020 and in pursuance of the said permission, the 3rd respondent started construction of the Tower.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.A.V. Ratnam, that the area is purely residential and already there is an existing Tower belonging to broadcasting Reliance Network at a distance of less than 1 kilometre from Plot No.27. It is stated that most of the residents are senior citizens and due to radiations from the Cell Towers, the residents of the colony are facing health hazards. Therefore, the proceedings of the 2nd respondent for sanctioning permission to the 3rd respondent are challenged in this Writ Petition. It is stated that the petitioner has made representations to the District Collector on 05.10.2020 by marking a copy to the 2nd respondent in this regard but no action has been taken till date and that the 3rd respondent is constructing the Tower on war footing basis.
When the matter came up for admission on 21.10.2020, there was an interim direction to maintain status quo as on the date of the order.
It is seen that the 3rd respondent has also filed a counter affidavit stating that the objections raised by the petitioner association are without any basis and are not sustainable. As regards the issue of radiation from the Cell Tower causing health hazards to the residents, he submitted that the frequency of radiation is much below the level which would affect the health of any person. He submitted that this issue has been considered by High Courts of various States and it has been held that the apprehension that radiation would cause any health hazard is baseless. He placed reliance upon (1) a decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kapil Choudhary and others Vs. Union of India and others MANU/DE/1886/2016, (2) a decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Reliance Infocomm Ltd. Vs. The Chemanchery Gram Panchayat and others MANU/KE/0450/2006 and (3) a decision of High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in the case of Vijay Verma and others Vs. State of H.P. and others MANU/HP/1116/2015. He submitted that in all these decisions, the respective High Courts have considered the issue of radiation caused by Cell Towers and as to whether they would have any effect on the health of the residents and therefore all these decisions clearly cover the issue as to whether the radiation emitted from the Cell Towers are causing any health hazards to the residents in the area.
As regards the second objection of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent submitted that there is already an existing Cell Tower within a radius of 1 kilometre from Plot No.27 and there are no guidelines or any restrictions on erection of Cell Tower within the radius of 1 kilometre from the existing Tower. It submitted that G.O.Ms.No.96 dt.05.08.2015 has issued guidelines for the State Government from Department of Telecommunications for issue of clearance for installation of mobile Towers effective from 01.08.2013 and there is no restriction provided therein in a residential area. It also referred to G.O.Ms.No.183 dt.27.02.2008, wherein the guidelines for according permission to all existing installations and proposed installations, both land based and rooftop installations, as per rules, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions were specified. It has also filed a copy of G.O.Ms.No.2 dt.01.01.2013 which is passed in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.183 dt.27.02.2008, wherein the condition of requiring the applicant to obtain NOC from the surrounding building owners and also from the concerned building owner in case of rooftop installations, has been deleted. Therefore, according to him, there is no requirement of the 3rd respondent seeking any permission or NOC from the residents of the area.
Learned counsel for the petitioner however reiterated the submissions made in the writ affidavit.
Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, the basic objection of the petitioner is that radiation from Cell Towers would cause health hazards to the residents of the locality and particularly if two Cell Towers are erected within a radius of 1 kilometre from each other. As regards the ill-effects on the health of the residents of the area by the radiation of Cell Towers, the Hon’ble High Courts of Delhi and Kerala have considered the issue at length and have held that the apprehensions of the petitioners therein are not based on any scientific data. It has also been observed that if the installation of Tower and the emission of electro-magnetic waves cause any air pollution, affecting human health, the Pollution Control Board can take appropriate measures under Air (Prevention and Control Pollution) Act, 1991. It has also been observed that the general public should be informed that there is no reason for them to fear about the erection of the Base Transceiver Station, known as the Wi-Fi Mobile Tower; that they have no potential to cause health hazard due to the emission of radioactive waves from the said tower. Even before this Court, no scientific data has been produced by the petitioner in support of its contention that these Cell Towers are likely to cause any health hazards to the residents of the area. As regards the second objection also, there is no material placed before this Court about any restriction or prohibition in erecting two Cell Towers within the radius of 1 kilometre from each other. Therefore, this Court holds that the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall also stand dismissed.