Disposed

M.Parvathy v. the District Collector

Madras HC21 Mar 2024WP/7443/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to remove a cell phone tower alleged to cause health hazards. The Court directed the Tahsildar with the RDO to report to the District Collector, who shall decide the petitioner's representation after hearing parties within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction for report by Tahsildar/RDO and decision by District Collector on representation within 12 weeks; writ petition disposed, no costs.

M.Parvathy Vs the District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

2024:MHC:1431

¶2

W.P.No.7443 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 21.03.2024

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶7

W.P.No.7443 of 2024

M.Parvathy

.... Petitioner

1.The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶12

2.The Tahsildar, Coimbatore North, Coimbatore.

¶13

3.The Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.

¶14

4.The Inspector of Police, Periyanayakkampalayam Police Station Periyanayakkampalayam, Coimbatore.

¶15

5.The President,

¶16

Periyanayakkanpalayam Panchayat, Periyanayakkampalayam, Coimbatore.

¶17

Ranganayaki

¶18

.... Respondents

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

1/6

¶21

W.P.No.7443 of 2024

¶22

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to implement the order of the 1^st respondent in Na.Ka.No.878750/2023/C2 dated 05.05.2023 within a stipulated time.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Veera Raghavan For Respondents : Mr.S.John J. Raja Singh Additional Government Pleader – R1 & R2 Mr.R.Kishore Kumar Government Advocate – R3 & R4 Mr.G.Ameedius Government Advocate - R5

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh, learned Additional Government Pleader

¶26

accepts notice for R1 and R2, Mr.R.Kishore Kumar, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for R3 and R4 and Mr.G.Ameedius, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for R5. They are armed with instructions to enable final disposal of this Writ Petition, even at the stage of admission. No notice is thought necessary to R6 at this juncture as her interests have been duly taken note of and addressed by virtue of this order.

¶27

The petitioner states that she is a resident of Ayyasamy Nagar, Mettupalayam Road, Jothipuram, Coimbatore. She is aggrieved by the cell phone tower that has been installed in the property belonging to R6 for the past 10 years. The petitioner states that the radiation from the cell

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

2/6

¶30

W.P.No.7443 of 2024

¶31

phone tower has been causing health hazard to all the residents in that locality.

¶32

The petitioner has made a representation to the first respondent, i.e., District Collector to remove the cell phone tower, who, in turn, has sought reports from the Tahsildar/R2 and the Revenue Divisional Officer, the latter not arrayed in this Writ Petition, vide proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.878750/2023/C2 dated 05.05.2023.

¶33

Since the representation of the petitioner is still pending, she seeks a mandamus directing R2 to implement the order of R1 dated 05.05.2023. In fact proceedings dated 05.05.2023 do not really advance the case of the petitioner, since all that the Collector has sought is a report from the officials.

¶34

Moreover, Mr.Singh would point out that the representation dated 20.03.2023 refers to certain ailments caused to the petitioner by virtue of the erection of cell phone tower but there is absolutely nothing to substantiate the same.

¶35

Be that as it may, the Tahsildar/R2 in conjunction with the Revenue Divisional Officer will furnish a report to the District Collector for necessary action in accordance with law. Based on the report to be received, the District Collector/R1 shall pass an order on the

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

3/6

¶38

W.P.No.7443 of 2024

¶39

representation of the petitioner dated 20.03.2023, after hearing the petitioner, R6 and any others, who may be deemed necessary for proper adjudication of the matter, in accordance with law.

¶40

In doing so, he shall bear in mind the order passed by the First Bench of this Court in K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy V. The Secretary, Department of Telecommunications and others (W.P.Nos.24976 of 2008 etc. batch order dated 05.03.2015). Let this exercise be completed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

This Writ Petition is disposed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

¶42

21.03.2024

¶43

Index:Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes sl

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

4/6

¶46

W.P.No.7443 of 2024

¶47

¶48

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

¶49

2.Directorate of Medical Education, Represented by the Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.

¶50

3.Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services, Represented by its Director of of Medical and Rural Health Services,

¶51

359, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 006.

¶52

4.Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Represented by its Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine,

¶53

359, Anna Salai, Chennai - 06.

¶54

K.A.P.Viswanathan Government Medical College, represented by its Dean, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001.

¶55

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

5/6

¶58

W.P.No.7443 of 2024

¶59

¶60

W.P.No.7443 of 2024

¶61

21.03.2023

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

6/6

M.Parvathy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Parvathy 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.2100 Devanampattinam (south) Fishermen Vs Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbanary and Dairying

D.Purushothaman Vs the Collector

Dalmia Laminators Ltd., Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission

Savithri Vs the District Collector

Dr.C.M.Bavithiran Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

F.Miraclin Vs the State of Tamil Nadu