Dismissed

Felix Raja.J v. the District Collector

Madras HC29 Nov 2021WP(MD)/17982/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the installation of Base Trans Receiver Station Towers. The Court held it cannot interfere with the Department of Telecommunications' domain to grant approval and cannot direct authorities to forbear from discharging official duties before approval is granted.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; no costs; connected Miscellaneous Petition dismissed.

Felix Raja.J Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 29.11.2021

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN W.P(MD)NO.17982 OF 2021 and W.M.P(MD)No.14851 of 2021

J.Felix Raja

:Petitioner

.vs.

1.The District Collector, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. 2.The Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, Thanajvur District. 3.The Tahsildar, Pattukkottai, Thanajvur District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Thiruchitrambalam Police Station, (at Cheruvaviduthi), Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanajvur District. 5.The Executive Officer, Punalvasal Village Panchayat, Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanjavur District. 6.S.Singaraj 7.ATC Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited, represented by its Manager, Harinarayanan, Father name not known to the Petitioner, Circle Office, Celestial Point, No.45, Damodharan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai. : Respondents

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

1/4

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 to forbear the respondents 6 and 7 to instal Base Trans Receiver Station Towers in S.No.503 of Punalvasal Village, Thanjavur District except under due process of law.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sasikumar

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.M.Ramesh 1 to 4 Govt.Advocate

¶13

For Respondent-7 : Mr.K.Govindarajan for Mr.M.Karl Marx

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

¶16

(Order of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYNARAYANA,J)

¶17

The Petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents 1 to 5, who are the official respondents from forbearing the respondents 6 and 7 to instal the Base Trans Receiver Station Towers in S.No.503 of Punalvasal Village, Thanjavur District, except under due process of law.

¶18

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶19

3.With regard to the above subject-matter, the Petitioner has submitted a representation to the District Collector, Thanjavur District, who is the first respondent herein, on 7.9.2021.The said representation states states that the proposed cell-phone towers would radiate micro-waves which would cause various disease for the children and others. It is also not out of place to mention here that the said argument about the radiation has already been decided by this Court in the case of Manivannan .vs. The District Collector, Tuticorin District and others reported in 2019(6) MLJ 641 and in Paragraph No.12.13, the Department of Telecommunications had issued advisory guidelines for the State Governments in respect of issuance of clearance, for installation of mobile towers and that could be the only objection for the Writ Petitioner. The other objections taken by the Petitioner is that in the said village is having a very thick population and there are several schools in the village, but he has not mentioned whether there is any violation committed by the seventh respondent in installing the Base Trans Receiver Station Towers within the prohibited distance etc.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

2/4

¶22

4.The learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent submits that he has already made an application before the District Collector, Thanjavur District for approval and they are awaiting for the same.

¶23

5.In the light of the above facts, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner has rushed to this Court to stall the erection of the cell-phone towers even before the approval could be granted. When the grant of approval is within domain of the first respondent, this Court cannot interfere and forbear the authorities concerned from discharging their official duties. If the approval is granted to the seventh respondent and if the Petitioner is otherwise being aggrieved by the same, he may challenge the same, in the manner known to law and thus the Writ Petition fails.

¶24

6.With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

¶25

Assistant Registrar (AD-I)

// True Copy //

vsn

Note :

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶30

¶31

1.The District Collector, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur.

¶32

2.The Sub-Collector, Pattukkottai, Thanajvur District.

¶33

3.The Tahsildar, Pattukkottai, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thanajvur District.

¶34

3/4

¶35

4.The Inspector of Police, Thiruchitrambalam Police Station, (at Cheruvaviduthi), Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanajvur District. 5.The Executive Officer, Punalvasal Village Panchayat, Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanjavur District. +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-36473[F] dated 30/11/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.V. SASIKUMAR, Advocate (SR-36585[F] dated 30/11/2021 )

¶36

+1 CC to M/s.M. KARALMARX, Advocate (SR-36640[F] dated 30/11/2021 )

¶37

W.P(MD)NO.17982 OF 2021 and W.M.P(MD)No.14851 of 2021 29.11.2021

¶38

RK(08/12/2021) 4P 9C

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶40

4/4

Felix Raja.J v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Felix Raja.J v. the District Collector

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

Karuppaiya Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep. by

Boopathy.S Vs the Inquiry Officer

S.Rajaji Alias Rajamani, Vs the Chief Engineer (Distribution)

Sirajudin Vs the Commissioner of Municipal Administration

Eeswaran Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

The Chief Educational Officer Vs K.Alima Banu