Disposed

P. Ramdas Chary, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Aug 2015WP/26330/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought intervention regarding a telecommunication tower erected in violation of norms, alleging danger to life. The Court held that radiation grievances fall under the DMroll of Telecom Enforcement and Resources Monitoring (TERM) Cell. The Commissioner of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation was directed to consider representations under G.O.Ms.No.96 within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation was directed to consider the petitioners' representation under G.O.Ms.No.96 and communicate a decision within four weeks; the writ petition

P. Ramdas Chary, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

¶3

Present

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.26330 of 2015

¶6

Between:

¶7

P. Ramdas Chary, S/o.P. Narahari, Age:56 years, Occ: Gold Smith, R/o.10-4-A/468, Addagutta, Thukaram Gate, Secunderabad, Nehrunagar, Hyderabad – 500 026 & 2 others

¶8

.. Petitioners

¶9

AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 2 others

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

The Court made the following:

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶13

WRIT PETITION No.26330 of 2015

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

The petitioners claim to be the residents of Addagutta, Thukaram Gate, Secunderabad. The petitioners allege that without following the norms prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.96, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M1) Department, dated 05.08.2015, Telecommunication Infrastructure Tower is permitted to be established in the neighbouring house, which would cause serious hardship and danger to the life of the neighbours. The Telecommunication Infrastructure Tower is erected on the edge of the building in the thickly populated area and low tension lines are passing through and if any unforeseen event of collapse of the cell tower occurs, the persons living in the neighbouring building would be adversely affected.

¶16

2. However, as seen from the representation submitted on 17.07.2015, the grievance agitated was on the issue of radiation emanating from the tower. Insofar as the issue of radiation is concerned, the competent authority to deal with the matter is the Telecom Enforcement and Resources Monitoring (TERM) Cell in the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India. Therefore, if the petitioners are aggrieved of possible radiation emanating from the Telecommunication Infrastructure Tower, they should approach the TERM Cell of the Department of Telecommunication. With reference to the other aspects now agitated, it is open to the petitioners to make a detailed representation to the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal

¶17

Corporation, Hyderabad (2^nd respondent) and on receipt of such representation, the Commissioner shall consider objectively with reference to the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.96, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M1) Department, dated 05.08.2015, and pass appropriate orders, as warranted by law, and communicate the decision to the petitioners. Such decision should be taken and communicated within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of submission of representation.

¶18

3. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶19

_________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J

¶20

Date: 20^th August, 2015 KL

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.26330 of 2015

¶23

Date: 20^th August, 2015

¶24

P. Ramdas Chary, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Ramdas Chary, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badugu Arjun Rao, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

G. Raveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Vazirani Mohini Haresh, Vs The Hyderabad Water Supply and Sewarage Board

T.Balabhadra Doss, D/o.Late T.Ganeshdass , Ganesh Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Agi Glass Factory (Contract Workers Union) Vs State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary

Smt P.Anuradha, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation