Remanded

Aneesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 May 2024WP(C)/4015/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the District Telecom Committee's permission for a tower installation near an Anganwadi due to radiation concerns. The court directed the District Telecom Committee to consider pending reports from the Pollution Control Board and DMO before finalizing construction. The order was remanded for fresh consideration within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 2nd respondent to consider reports from the Pollution Control Board and DMO and decide within one month after hearing all parties.

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4015 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 ANEESH

¶8

AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. RAMUNJI (LATE), KOTHARAMBATH HOUSE, UDMA.P.O,
UDMA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671 319

¶9

2 CHANDRAN

¶10

AGED 42 YEARS

¶11

S/O. MANI, KOTHARAMBATH HOUSE, UDMA.P.O,
UDMA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671 319

¶12

BY ADVS.
HEMALATHA
BINU GEORGE

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001

¶15

2 THE DISTRICT TELECOM COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KASARAGOD, PIN – 671 121

¶16

3 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE, KASARAGOD, PIN – 671 121

¶17

4 SECRETARY UDMA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, UDMA.P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671 319

¶18

5 UDMA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UDMA.P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671 319

¶19

6 INDUS TOWERS LIMITED 8TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS, NH BYPASS, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER, V.G.SANKARAN, PIN – 682 024

¶20

WP(C) NO. 4015 OF 2024

¶21

2

¶22

7KRISHNAN. K
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. KANNAN, POURNAMI NIVAS,
KOTHARAMBATH, UDMA P.O, UDMA VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN – 671 319

¶23

BY ADVS.
SUKARNAN
RENJITH B.MARAR
LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL(K/422/2003)
P.RAJKUMAR(R-532)
KESHAVRAJ NAIR(K/000797/2015)
ARUN POOMULLI(D/3696/2015)
PREETHA S CHANDRAN(K/298/2009)
ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR(K/2617/2022)
ANAND REMESH(K/1491/2023)
ABHIRAM.S.(K/3053/2022)
C.R.REKHA(K/854/2001)
GAADHA SURESH(K/817/2015)
VISWANATH JAYAN(K/2499/2021)
ANUPRIYA S.RAJU(K/002059/2021)
BALASUBRAMANIAM R.(K/000503/2021)

¶24

SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE. GP.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

WP(C) NO. 4015 OF 2024

T.R.RAVI.J

WP(C) No.4015 of 2024

¶31

------------------------------------------------Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2024

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5

¶34

proceedings whereby the District Telecom Committee has

¶35

permitted installation of a tower by the 6^th respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is an

¶36

Anganwadi situated about 40 meters away and there is a likelihood of health issues due to the radiation caused by

¶37

the telecommunication tower.

¶38

The Government Pleader on instructions

¶39

submitted that at the time of consideration by the

¶40

committee and issuance of Ext.P5 order, there were no

¶41

adverse reports available against installation of the

¶42

tower. The reports have been received after the orders

¶43

WP(C) NO. 4015 OF 2024

¶44

¶45

have been issued, but the said reports also do not endorse any health issues. The petitioners prays that there may be consideration of the said reports with notice to them by the original authority since admittedly those reports have not been considered by the original authority.

¶46

Even though, there is no reason at present for setting aside Ext.P5 order, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the original authority considers the reports submitted by the Pollution Control Board and DMO.

¶47

The writ petition is hence disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the reports submitted by the Pollution Control Board and the DMO and if a review of Ext.P5 order is required on the basis of such consideration, the 2^nd respondent is free to do so. Any

¶48

WP(C) NO. 4015 OF 2024

¶49

¶50

construction that may be undertaken on the basis of

¶51

Ext.P5 would be subject to such decision that may be taken by the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent shall take a decision within one month from today, after

¶52

hearing the petitioners and the respondents.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI

JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 4015 OF 2024

¶58

¶59

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4015/2024

¶60

`PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit P1`	`A TRUE COPY` `THE DISTRICT`	`OF` `COL`	`REP` `LECT`	`RESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE` `OR`
`Exhibit P2`	`A TRUE COPY` `SUBMITTED B` `OFFICER`	`OF` `EFOR`	`RE` `E T`	`PRESENTATION DATE 23.11.2023` `HE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE`
`Exhibit P3`	`A TRUE COPY` `SUBMITTED B` `ACTION COMMI` `PANCHAYTH`	`OF` `Y` `TTEE`	`REP` `THE` `BEF`	`RESENTATION DATED 25.11.2023` `UDHAYAMANGALAM KOTHARAMBTH` `ORE THE PRESIDENT, UDMA GRAMA`
`Exhibit P4`	`A TRUE COPY` `GRAMA PANCHA`	`OF D` `YATH`	`ECI`	`SION DATED 25.11.2023 OF UDMA`
`Exhibit P5`	`A TRUE COPY` `OF DISTRICT`	`OF` `TELE`	`THE` `COM`	`PROCEEDINGS DATED 28.12.2023` `COMMITTEE`
`RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT R6(A)`	`A TRUE COPY` `SUBMITTED BY` `RESPONDENT`	`OF` `THE`	`THE` `6`	`INTIMATION DATED 01.11.2023` `TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 4 TH`
`EXHIBIT R6(B)`	`A TRUE CO` `1230105164/G`	`PY` `1404`	`OF` `01 D`	`THE RECEIPT NUMBERED AS` `ATED 03.11.2023`
`EXHIBIT R6(C)`	`A TRUE COPY` `THE DEPART` `22.12.2023`	`OF` `MENT`	`THE` `O`	`EMF CERTIFICATION ISSUED BY` `F TELECOMMUNICATION DATED`
`EXHIBIT R6(D)`	`A TRUE COPY` `DATED 21.08.`	`OF` `2013`	`THE`	`NO GO (MS) NO 21/2013/ITD`
`EXHIBIT R6(E)`	`A TRUE COPY` `15.03.2014`	`OF`	`THE`	`GO (MS) NO 14/2014/ITD DATED`
`EXHIBIT R6(F)`	`A TRUE COPY` `02.08.2014`	`OF`	`THE`	`GO (MS) NO 25/2014/ITD DATED`
`EXHIBIT R6(G)`	`A TRUE OF` `05.11.2014`	`THE`	`GO`	`(MS) NO 31/2014/ITD DATED`
`ANNEXURE R4(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF` `05/11/2014`	`THE`	`G.O`	`. (M.S) NO. 31/2014/ITD DATED`
`ANNEXURE R4(B)`	`TRUE COPY` `(AMENDMENT)`	`OF` `RULE`	`THE` `S, 2`	`KERALA PANCHAYAT BUILDING` `023 DATED 17/01/2023`

¶61

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Aneesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreeradh K B Vs the District Collector

Deepika Vijayan Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Nabeesa Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.)

Muhammed Arshad P.M. Vs Union of India

Sibina Vs 1. Indian Bank, Chengamanad (Represented through Branch Manager)

Abdul Basheer Kedumoole Vs Union of India