Disposed

Surendra Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC11 Apr 2014CW/3943/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A public interest litigation challenging the installation of new mobile towers near a school and temple without a valid NOC. The Court directed the District Collector to enquire, hear parties, and decide promptly while considering a coordinate Bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

Directed District Collector to enquire, hear parties, and decide promptly within four weeks considering directions from a coordinate Bench judgment.

Surendra Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Environment and Pollution | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION(PIL) NO.3943/2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION(PIL) NO.3943/ 2014 SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

¶5

DATE: 11.04.2014

¶6

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶7

Mr. Hari Kishan Sharma on behalf of Mr. Kartar Singh Fauzdar, for the petitioner.

¶8

¶9

BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) :

¶10

Heard Mr. Hari Kishan Sharma, the learned counsel for the

¶11

petitioner.

¶12

The petitioner has introduced himself to be the permanent resident of Tilak Nagar, near Gurmeet School, Sonpura Road in the District of Bharatpur. He seeks to espouse a public cause against the proposed installation of new Reliance Mobile Tower over the land of respondent No.4, in addition to the existing Tata Mobile Tower, located in the same colony. The petitioner has asserted that there is a school close to the site concerned where minor children study. Apart therefrom, there is also a temple nearby. According to him, the inhabitants of the colony have, meanwhile, submitted representations before the District Collector, Bharatpur and other authorities and that though the same had been forwarded to the Municipal Council, Bharatpur and the latter had

¶13

{2} DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION(PIL) NO.3943/2014

¶14

withdrawn the “ No objection certificate” granted to the respondent

¶15

No.5, the works are progressing. That a representation has also been submitted on behalf of the Gurmeet School, Bharatpur before the competent authority seeking its remedial intervention, but the same has remained unresponded, has been mentioned. The petitioner has also averred that the representation made by one Choudhary Digambar Singh, an inhabitant of the colony, vide his application dated 22.03.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, before the Municipal Council, Bharatpur, has also failed to evoke any response. Contending that if the proposed installation of the new mobile tower is complete, it would be extremely hazardous to the inhabitants of the locality, the petitioner has sought for judicial intervention.

¶16

Mr. Hari Kishan Sharma, while reiterating the above, has submitted that appropriate directions need to be issued to stall the offending project underway, more particularly in view of the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court, rendered on 27.11.2012 in a batch of writ petitions, lead case being D.B. PIL Pet it ion No.2774/2012- Just ice I.S. Israni(Ret d.) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶17

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a consideration of the pleaded averments and the documents on record, we are of the view that the instant proceeding ought to be closed by requiring the District Collector, Bharatpur to enquire into the matter and to take a prompt decision, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Ordered accordingly.

¶18

{3} DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION(PIL) NO.3943/2014

¶19

In doing so, needless to say, the aforementioned authority

¶20

would refer to and take note of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 27.11.2012, rendered in Just ice I.S. Israni(Ret d.) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. The petitioner is left at liberty to submit a copy of this writ petition along with annexures thereto as well as a copy of this order before the District Collector, Bharatpur, so as to enable him to do the needful. The exercise, as intended, should be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a

¶21

certified copy of this order.

¶22

The petition stands disposed of in these terms. (VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J. / KKC/ Certificate:

¶23

All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed. KAMLESH KUMAR P.A.

Surendra Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

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

Navneet and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mahaveer and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Nawal Singh Ratnawat Vs State Mines Departmentors

Vicky Kumar Vs U O I and Ors.

Pavan Kumar Rawat Vs State Animal and Husbsndry Depors

Union of India and Ors. Vs Gajendra Kumar Sharma and Ors.