Dismissed

Aditya Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC13 Sept 2024W.P.(C)/12822/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking cancellation of a permission letter issued to a private company to install a Communication Ground-Based Monopole near a residential school and hospital in Delhi. Upholding the single judge's order, the Court rejected claims of health hazards and lack of regulatory compliance.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking cancellation of the permission letter was dismissed.

Aditya Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. — Environment and Pollution | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~31

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 12822/2024 & CM APPL. 53469/2024 ADITYA SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra and Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, Advocates

¶4

versus

¶5

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS......Respondents Through: Mr. Siddhant Nath, Proxy Advocate for Ms. Shilpa Ohri, ASC and Mr. Bhavishya Makhija, Advocates for R- 1 Mr. Tushar Sannu and Mr. Sahaj Karan Singh, Advocates for R-3 and 4 % Date of Decision: 13^th September, 2024

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶8

JUDGMENT

¶9

MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)

¶10

Present public interest petition has been filed seeking issuance of directions to respondent No.1/Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) to cancel the permission letter dated 24^th April, 2024, whereby respondent no.2 has been authorized to install a Communication Ground-Based Monopole (GBM) near Sudhar Camp, Block-E, Kalkaji, Outside DUSIB Basti, Central Zone, Delhi (“subject area”).

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that on 10^th February, 2024, respondent no.2/M/s Nettel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. made an application to

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:14.09.2024 15:32:57

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

W.P.(C) 12822/2024

¶16

MCD seeking permission to set up GBM. He states that on 1^st April, 2024, letter of intent was issued by the office of Deputy Commissioner of MCD. Thereafter, on 24^th April, 2024, permission was granted to respondent no.2 to operate GBM in the subject area.

¶17

He states that when respondent no. 2 attempted to carry out the work of installation on 26^th April, 2024, the local residents of the subject area opposed the installation of GBM. He states that on 6^th May, 2024, Welfare Association E-Block, Kalkaji, New Delhi, made an application to the Deputy Commissioner SDMC, against the installation of GBM in the residential area. He states that installation of a mobile tower in a residential area is detrimental to health as the radiation emitted there from would cause health hazards to the residents of the vicinity. He states that prolonged exposure to electromagnetic fields from these towers has been linked to a range of health issues, including cancer, joint pains, depression, altered reflexes, fatigue, dizziness etc.

¶18

He states that as per clause 19 of the permission letter dated 24^th April, 2024, the infrastructure provider-I (IP-I) is required to follow all relevant guidelines from the Department of Telecom, TRAI, and other regulatory bodies, and to adhere to the guidelines specified in the permission letter. However, according to him, the respondent no.2 has failed to comply with these laws as respondent no.2 has not obtained permissions from the fire safety department as mandated by the regulations of the Delhi Fire Department.

¶19

He also states that as per clause 20 of the permission letter, GBMs have to be positioned in a manner that it does not disrupt public movement and is preferably away from sensitive areas such as schools, hospitals, and

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:14.09.2024 15:32:57

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

W.P.(C) 12822/2024

¶24

high-traffic zones. However, according to him, in this permission, the above site is near MCD School, MCD Poornima Sethi Hospital, Shubham Hopital, Senior citizen club, Laxmi Narayan temple, Lal Sai temple, Anganbadi, Hanuman Mandir, Sh. Murgan Temple etc.

¶25

Per contra , learned counsel for the MCD states that a writ petition filed by the Welfare Association E-Block seeking cancellation of the permission letter dated 24^th April, 2024 authorizing the respondent no.2 to install a GBM has already been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 30^th July, 2024.

¶26

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the MCD has already granted permission to the respondent no.2 to install the GBM. The writ petition challenging the said permission has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 30^th July, 2024. Further, a writ petition bearing no. W.P.(C) 9663/2024 filed by respondent no. 2 seeking police assistance for installing GBM at subject area has already been allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 16^th July, 2024. Consequently, this Court is of the view that clause 19 has no application at this stage.

¶27

A learned Single Judge of this Court in Kapil Choudhary & Anr. v. Union of India [2016 SCC Online Del 2558] has also held that there is no scientific data to show that installation of mobile towers and the emission of the waves by the said towers is in any way harmful for the health of citizens. In the said judgment it was held that there is no conclusive data to the said effect.

¶28

Also, clause 20 of the permission letter provides that installation of GBM and its operation shall be such that it should not disturb the free

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:14.09.2024 15:32:57

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

W.P.(C) 12822/2024

¶33

movement of traffic/public and shall preferably be away from the school/hospital and places where heavy traffic and public movement is being done. Clause 20 nowhere states that GBM cannot be installed close to any school/hospital whatever.

¶34

Consequently, the present petition being bereft of merit is dismissed.

¶35

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶36

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶37

SEPTEMBER 13, 2024 ms

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:14.09.2024 15:32:57

¶40

Page 4 of 4

¶41

W.P.(C) 12822/2024

Aditya Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dominic Simon Vs Pio Ministry of External Affairs & Anr.

Mohanlal Arora Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Gaon Sabha Kapashera Vs Ram Singh

Shri. Sunil Kalgounda Patil Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. and Ors. & Anr.

Ziaul Haque & Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Ram Kunal Vs B.S.E.S.Rajdhani Power Ltd.

M/S Swastik Oil Products Manufacturing Navsari Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sher Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Amita Sinha Vs Sneha Srivastava & Ors.

M/S Keya Foods Vs Union of India & Ors.

Dr. (Ms) Usha Aggarwal Vs Shri Avdesh Chand Gupta & Ors.

Rakhi Singh Vs University of Delhi and Others

Good Year Security Services R. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Social Jurist, a Civil Rights Group Vs Honble Lieutenant Governor & Ors.