Dismissed

Rekha Nair, v. the District Telecom Committee

Kerala HC22 Oct 2020WP(C)/16601/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order of the District Telecom Committee granting permission for a mobile tower installation near their residences. The High Court held the decision was legal, radiation norms were satisfied, and the issue was within the Committee's domain, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Dispatched to Dakor Akash

Rekha Nair, Vs the District Telecom Committee — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY,THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2020/30TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.16601 OF 2020(A)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 REKHA NAIR,D/O. G.PARAMSWARAN NAIR, SAI LEKSHMI, SNRA-8, MOOLEPEEDIKA, WEST KADUNGALLOOR P.O., ALUVA-683 110.

¶8

2 ZEENA M.A.,AMBATTU HOUSE, MOOLEPEEDIKA, WEST KADUNGALLOOR P.O., ALUVA-683 110.

¶9

3 SASIKALA,MADANGAMPALLI PARAMBU, WEST KADUNGALLOOR P.O., ALUVA-683 110.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SMT.LIYA ELZA ALEX SMT.UTHARA A.S

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE DISTRICT TELECOM COMMITTEE, OFFICE OF THE DTC, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN (THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR), ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶13

2 KADUNGALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUPPATHADAM, ALUVA-683 110.

¶14

3 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, FACT QR.NO.S-5, ELOOR EAST, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 501.

¶15

4 V.K.KAREEM,S/O. KADAR PILLAI, VARAPARAMBIL VEEDU, WEST KADUNAGLOOR, ALUVA-683 110.

¶16

WPC.16601/2020

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

5 M/S. RELIANCE JIO INFOCOM LTD., PUKALAKKATTU KARAYATTU TOWER, NEAR YATHRI NIVAS, MAMANGALAM, PALARIVATTOM-682 025.

¶19

6 HALEEMA,AMBATTU PARAMBIL, MOOLEPEEDIKA, WEST KADUNGALLOOR P.O., ALUVA-683 110.

¶20

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RASHMI K.M. R2 BY SRI.DINESH MATHEW J. MURIKKAN, SC R3 BY SRI T.NAVEEN, SC R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.BENZIR R5 BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR) R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN R6 BY ADV. SHRI.GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC.16601/2020

: 3 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 22^nd day of October, 2020

¶27

Petitioners seek to quash Ext.P5 and to direct the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation and pass orders after hearing them.

¶28

The petitioners are challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the 1^st respondent-District Telecom Committee granting permission and police protection for installation of Mobile Tower in Ward No.10 of Kadungalloor Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioners, the tower is being installed in a highly populated area and less than 10 metres distance from the residence of the petitioners. It is also located near a KSEB transformer which is hardly 25 metres away. The installation of the tower will affect the lives of the residents of West Kadungalloor Village, some of whom are cancer patients.

¶29

WPC.16601/2020

¶30

: 4 :

¶31

Ext.P1 petition was filed by 72 local residents to

¶32

the District Collector, Grama Panchayat, Environmental Engineer, District Telephone Officer and Assistant Engineer of KSEB seeking their interference in the matter. The District Telecom Committee issued Ext.P3 inviting the 3^rd respondent for a hearing on a petition filed by the 5^th respondent, who is erecting the telecom tower.

¶33

During the hearing, it was urged before the 1^st respondent that the telecom tower is being installed in a thickly populated area and hardly 10 metres away from residences. It was also pointed out that the owner of the land where the tower is being erected, has 1 Acre extent of land and if the tower is being erected, it should be erected somewhere away from the residential houses of the complainants.

¶34

However, the 1^st respondent passed Ext.P5 order granting police protection to the 5^th respondent for installation of the tower. The petitioners have stated that the 1^st respondent had convened two meetings on 17.03.2020 and

¶35

WPC.16601/2020

¶36

: 5 :

¶37

24.06.2020. However, the 1^st respondent ignored the issues raised in the meeting held on 24.06.2020. According to the petitioners, the 1^st respondent ought to have allowed erection of mobile tower only at a place which will cause least inconvenience to all.

¶38

The 5^th respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavits. The 5^th respondent stated that the proposed mobile tower is causing no threat to the public. The Kadungalloor Grama Panchayat has granted Ext.R5(a) building permit for installing mobile tower. The equipment used by the 5^th respondent has received EMF radiation certification, which would show that the mobile tower is radiation compliant.

¶39

The 5^th respondent further submitted that the District Telecom Committee is the competent authority for the purpose of redressing grievances of the stakeholders including general public. The 5^th respondent has approved the installation of the mobile tower at the place in question, after considering all the facts.

¶40

WPC.16601/2020

¶41

: 6 :

¶42

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents and counsel for respondents 5 and 6.

¶43

The argument of the petitioners is that Ext.P5 order has been passed by the 1^st respondent without application of mind. Ext.P5 does not disclose that the 1^st respondent has considered the points urged during the meeting held on 24.06.2020. The 1^st respondent has not considered the inconvenience that would be caused to a large number of local residents. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in D.B.PIL Petition No.2774/2012.

¶44

A perusal of the pleadings would show that the Radiation Control Norms as prescribed by Telecom Enforcement Resource and Monitoring Department of the Government of India has been satisfied by the 5^th respondent. The radiation emission that may be caused by the tower is within the permissible limits. The 5^th respondent

¶45

WPC.16601/2020

¶46

: 7 :

¶47

has obtained a building permit, approved by the Civil Engineer and has received stability certificate also. The 1^st respondent has also taken into account the necessity of digital connectivity at a time when online education is being imparted in the State.

¶48

This Court has held in Ext.R5(f) judgment that when the competent District Telecom Committee has considered the desirability or otherwise of erecting a telecom tower at a specified place, this Court cannot enter into a re-appreciation of the factual aspects of the matter. It is also evident that the 5^th respondent has erected the mobile tower after obtaining necessary permits and licences. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in Ext.P5 proceedings of the 1^st respondent.

¶49

The writ petition is therefore devoid of any merits and it is therefore dismissed.

¶50

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/30.11.2020

WPC.16601/2020

: 8 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶56

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY	OF THE	MASS PETITION FILED BY
	THE RESIDE	NTS OF	THE WEST KADUNGALLOOR.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY DATED 21.1	OF THE 1.2017.	MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY	OF THE	NOTICE DATED 10.6.2020
	ISSUED BY	THE IST	RESPONDENT.

¶57

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATION DATED 24.6.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENTS AND OTHERS.

¶58

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.7.2020 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶59

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶60

EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.A4BA(248305)2019 DATED 25.07.2019. EXHIBIT R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE EMF CERTIFICATION FOR RADIATION COMPLIANCE. EXHIBIT R5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.25/2014/ITD DATED 02.08.2014. EXHIBIT R5(d) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.31/2014/ITD DATED 05.11.2014. A TRUE COPY OF THE STABILITY CERTIFICATE EXHIBIT R5(e) DATED 16.07.2019. TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.33759 EXHIBIT R5(f) OF 2019 AND WP(C) NO.50 OF 2020 DATED 16.03.2020.

Rekha Nair, v. the District Telecom Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha Nair, v. the District Telecom Committee

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

Nelsy @ Nelsy Robin Vs Registrar of Marriages

V.N.Public Health and Educational Trust Vs State of Kerala

V.N.Public Health and Education Trust Vs State of Kerala

Thambi Sebastian, Vs State of Kerala

Jain Builders Vs Union of India

Dr.Mahesh P.G., Vs the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations