Dismissed

C.Perummal v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC23 Oct 2018WP/27550/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to restrain respondent authorities from erecting cell phone towers in residential areas citing cancer risks. The Court dismissed the writ petition, relying on prior precedents, holding it lacks technical expertise to assess radiation hazards and directing concerned ministries to conduct necessary studies.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and connected miscellaneous petition disposed of on the same terms as in W.P.No.3006 of 2008; no prohibition granted; no costs awarded.

C.Perummal Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23.10.2018 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

¶2

WP.No.27550 of 2018 and WMP No.32067 of 2018

¶3

C.Perummal ... Petitioner

¶4

vs.

¶5

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Department, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District.

¶6

The Block Development Officer, Thirupporur Block Development Office, Thirupporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶7

The Tahsildar, Thirupporur Taluk, Kanchepuram District.

¶8

The Executive Engineer, TNEB, Mambakkam Sub Power Station, Mambakkam, Kanchepuram District. ... Respondents

¶9

WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, restraining the respondents from granting any permission or approval or allotment for erection of any Cell Phone Tower in the residential vicinity area of Kolathur Village, Thirupporur Taluk, Kanchepuram District based on the representation of the petitioner dated 21.08.2018.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arokia Maniraj

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.E.Manoharan (for R1 & R3) Additional Government Pleader Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan (for R2) Government Pleader.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J)

¶14

Claiming himself to be a permanent resident of Kolathur Village, petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation for a writ of mandamus, restraining the respondents from granting any permission or approval or allotment for erection of any Cell Phone Tower in the residential vicinity area of Kolathur Village, Thirupporur Taluk, Kanchepuram District, based on his representation

¶15

dated 21.08.2018.

¶16

Contending inter alia that emission of rays from the cell phone tower would affect the human beings and could cause cancer, petitioner has claimed to have sent separate representations, dated 21.08.2018 to the respondents herein. Further contending that his representation has not been responded, instant writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus, stated supra.

¶17

Mr.E.Manoharan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 and Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, learned Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of 2nd respondent, have consented for the disposal of the writ petition, at the admission stage itself. Thus, on consensus, instant writ petition is disposed of, as hereunder.

¶18

Material on record discloses that villagers of Kolathur, have submitted separate representations to the respondents herein, on 21.08.2018, objecting to the erection of cell phone tower and the said representation reads thus.

¶19

"bghUs; : fpuhk FoapUg;g[ gFjpapy; tutpUf;Fk; bry;nghd; ltiu mfw;w ntz;o typa[Wj;JtJ rk;ke;jkhf/

¶20

kjpg;gpw;Fhpa Iah.

¶21

fh";rpg[uk; khtl;lk;. jpUg;nghU:u; tl;lk;. bfhsj;J}u; Cuhl;rpapy; bfhsj;J}u; fpuhkj;jpy; bry;ypak;kd; nfhtpy; bjUtpy; cs;s jpU/enlrd; mtu;fspd; kfd; jpU/N.Fl;o (v) VGkiy mtu;fSf;F FoapUg;g[f;fhf bfhLf;fg;gl;l fpuhk ej;j gl;lhtpy; cs;s epyj;jpy; bry;nghd; ltu; itf;f Vw;ghL bra;J tUfpwhu;fs;/ Vw;fdnt ,e;j bry;nghd; ltu; kyf;nfhl;ila{u; kw;Wk; gd';fhl;Lg;ghf;fk; fpuhkj;jpy; miktjhf ,Ue;jJ/ m';F kf;fs; vjpu;g;g[ bjhptpj;jjhy; ,';F mikf;fpd;wdu;/ mtu;fs; ,e;j ltiu mikg;gjhy; v';fSf;F bghpa Mgj;ij tpistpf;Fk;/ ,e;j ltiu mikg;gjw;F mtu;fs; Kiwahd mDkjp kw;Wk; chpa Mtz';fs; ,y;yhky; ltu; mikf;Fk; gzpfis nkw;bfhz;L tUfpwhu;fs;/ Mfnt Iah mtu;fs; mtw;iw tprhuiz bra;J mtu;fspd; kPJ chpa eltof;if vLf;Fk;go j';fis gzptd;g[ld; nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwhk;/"

¶22

On an earlier occasion, when a similar writ petition viz., W.P.No.23411 of 2018 filed, for prohibiting the respondents therein from erecting cell phone tower, came up for admission, attention of this Court was brought to a decision of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3006 of 2008 dated 19.02.2018. Following the orders made in the said writ petition, W.P.No.23411 of 2018 was disposed of on 07.09.2018, as hereunder.

¶23

"3. When the matter came up for admission, attention of this Court was invited to an order made by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3006 of 2018, dated 19.02.2018

¶24

[P.Balasubramaniam Vs. The District Collector, Namakkal District and others], by which, a similar writ petition, opposing commissioning of high rise cellular phone transmission towers, was considered and disposed of, as hereunder.

¶25

It is not for this Court exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to assess the health hazards of erection and/or commission of high rise Mobile Phone Towers in residential areas or elsewhere. The exercise of study of health hazards, if any, of erection of Cellular Phone Transmission Towers has to be done by the Health Department of the Union of India and the Government of Tamil Nadu and based on such study, measures may have to be taken. This Court neither has the expertise, nor the technical knowledge to asses the effects and/or ill-effects of the radiation, if any, caused by the installation of Cellular Phone Transmission Towers.

¶26

It is believed that not only erection of towers, but even excessive use of mobile phones has its own hazards. However, mobile phones seem to have become a part of life, where parents who can afford

¶27

mobile phones, even provide children with mobile phones so that they can keep track of the children. Mobile phones are used by persons of every strata of society. Regretfully, we cannot but comment on our own inability to strictly enforce switching off of mobile phones even in the Court rooms and Court proceedings are often disturbed by ringing mobile phones. In these circumstances, we are not sure whether an order by the Court prohibiting erection of Mobile Phone Towers can be considered to be an order in public interest, though personally we may feel that restriction in use of mobile phones is imperative for reasons of health, reasons of concentration and may be even social and family harmony.

¶28

A similar writ petition was moved by Dr.K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy being W.P.No.24967 of 2008, where an order dated 05.03.2015 was passed by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.M.Sundresh as under:

¶29

�10. We are, thus, of the view 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.

¶30

We are of the view that no further directions are required in these matters, other than to say that the concerned authorities would continue to analyse the materials as and when it emerges to look into the concern raised by the petitioner, especially, in view of the fact that there is no final view as yet on these aspects. Science grows and evolves and one does not know what may happen tomorrow. It is, in this context, we have made these observations.�

¶31

As a Bench of co-ordinate strength, we are bound by the aforesaid verdict dated 05.3.2015 in the public interest litigation initiated by Dr.K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy.

¶32

We expect the concerned Health Ministries to conduct necessary studies in this regard and to take such measures as may be deemed appropriate upon such studies.

¶33

Needless to mention that Cellular Phone Transmission Towers can only be erected on obtaining of requisite permissions and approvals as per law.

¶34

The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, WMP.No.3672 of 2018 is closed."

¶35

Following the order made in WP.No.3006 of 2018, dated 19.02.2018, instant writ petition is disposed of, on the same terms. No Costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed."

¶36

In view of the above, instant W.P.No.27550 of 2018, is also disposed of on the same terms as in W.P.No.3006 of 2018 dated 19.02.2018. No Costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

(S.M.K., J.) (S.P., J.) 23.10.2018 Index: Yes. Internet: Yes Speaking/Non speaking ars To

¶38

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Department, Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District.

¶39

The Block Development Officer, Thirupporur Block Development Office, Thirupporur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

¶40

The Tahsildar, Thirupporur Taluk, Kanchepuram District.

¶41

The Executive Engineer, TNEB, Mambakkam Sub Power Station, Mambakkam, Kanchepuram District.

¶42

S.MANIKUMAR,J. AND SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

¶43

ars

¶44

WP.No.27550 of 2018 and WMP No.32067 of 2018

¶45

23.10.2018

C.Perummal v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Perummal v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Unnamalai Prasanthi Vs The Chairman

R.Natarajan Vs Government of Tamilnadu

M.Paul Perinbam Vs The Secretary

T. Devi Vs The District Collector

G.Sugumaran Vs Chief Secretary to Government

K.Pugalenthi Vs The Chief Secretary