Petitioner challenged the erection of a 4G tower by a telecom operator, citing health hazards near schools and hospitals. The court dismissed the petition due to lack of scientific data supporting health risks, citing a previous First Bench judgment.
Writ of mandamus dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.06.2016
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice N.KIRUBAKARAN
W.P.No.4958 of 2014
Sri Thirupurasundari Nagar Owners Welfare Association, rep. by its Secretary E.Lilly Mary.
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Ministry of Communication and Information Technology,
No.107, 1st Floor,
Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.
rep. by its Secretary to Government, St. George Fort, Chennai-9.
CMDA, Egmore, Chennai.
5.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai.
3rd Floor, Makar Chamber, IV, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. .. Respondents
2
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to recall the erection of 4G exchange and its tower at No.17/30, Thiripurasundari Nagar, Zone I, Thiruvotriyur, Chennai-19 by the 6th respondent herein.
For Petitioner .. Mr.G.Poonkundran For Respondents .. Mr.R.Veludas, CGC for R1 Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Spl. Govt. Pleader for R2 and R3 Mr.K.Raja Srinivas for R4 Mr.P.V.Selvakumar for R5 Mr.R.Bharanidharan for R6
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the Secretary of the Welfare Association of the residential area, has come before this Court, seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 to recall the erection of 4G exchange and its tower at No.17/30, Thiripurasundari Nagar, Zone I, Thiruvotriyur, Chennai-19 by the 6th respondent herein.
2.Mr.G.Poonkundran, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the erection of underground exchange and wall mounted cell phone tower in a thickly populated area would affect the area mates, especially, when the area is surrounded by
3
schools and hospitals. He has further submitted that there is no proper planning permission for the building in which the underground cell phone exchange is being operated by the sixth respondent. Without following the rules and procedure, the cell phone exchange is being run by the sixth respondent and therefore, the petitioner seeks for allowing of the writ petition.
3.However, Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned counsel for the sixth respondent would submit that everything has been done according to law. He would further submit that the apprehension of the petitioner is without any basis and he relied upon the First Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.No.24976 of 2008 etc., batch dated 05.03.2015 to contend that there is no health hazard.
4.Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the records.
5.It is an admitted fact that the sixth respondent is operating the underground cell phone exchange in the premises mentioned in the writ petition. Though it is contended that health hazard would be caused because the area is predominantly residential area, there is no scientific data available as on date to prove the fact that the cell
4
phone signals would cause health hazard. Since as on date, there is no proof of scientific data, the apprehension of the petitioner is unwarranted, if at all, it could be on surmises and conjunctures, based on some imaginary reasons. In W.P.No.24976 of 2008 etc., batch (K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy Vs. The Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, New Delhi and Others) , the First Bench of this Court, in para 10 of the judgment, held as under :
"10.We are, thus, of the view that in a judicial
proceeding these aspects cannot be analysed. There being no materials atleast as on date, which can finally suggest any health hazards from these towers and the solution thereof, the Court would not venture into unchartered territory of technical expertise to determine the area where it should be installed. The Court, at best can place this matter before the appropriate Committee to look into this matter which the Kerala High Court already did and we have the benefit of the conclusion arrived at in those proceedings, as noticed above."
6.In view of the reasoning that there is no scientific proof
5
regarding the claim of the petitioner, the writ petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
23.06.2016
Index:Yes/No mmi
To
Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.
6
N.KIRUBAKARAN, J.
mmi
W.P.No.4958 of 2014
23.06.2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition challenging the erection of a 4G exchange and tower alleging health hazards without scientific proof.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.24976 of 2008 etc., batch (K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy Vs. The Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, New Delhi and OtheReferred
Sri Thirupurasundari Nagar Owners Welfare Association
The Union of India
State of Tamil Nadu
The District Collector, Tiruvallur District
The Chairman, CMDA
The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai
N.KIRUBAKARAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
