Madras High Court
P.Selvarani vs The District Collector on 17 March, 2022
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
W.P.No.6036 of 2022 &
WMP.No.6124 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
W.P.No.6036 of 2022 &
WMP.No.6124 of 2022
P.Selvarani ... Petitioner
Vs
1 The District Collector,
Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthuri.
2 The Distict Superintendent of Police,
Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthuri.
3 The District Environmental Engineer,
The tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
Nagapattinam Distirct
4 The Executive officer,
Selection Grade Town Panchayat Kuthalam
Mayiladuthurai District
5 The Tahsildar
Kuthalam Mayiladuthurai distirct
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6036 of 2022 &
WMP.No.6124 of 2022
6 The State Human Right Commissioner,
Greams Road Adyar chennai 28
7 M/s. Ascend Telecom Infrastucture private Limited
Rep by its Authorized signatory
Mr. Tamilselvan Old No 32 New No.54,
Butt Road St. Thomas Mount Near Kathipara
Junction chennai – 600 016.
8 Azagesan
9 Kumaresan ... Respondents
PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the 7th
respondent from erecting the installing the Cell Tower on the site property
being portion of the land 1200 Square feet out of 523 Sq. meter situated
at Old Survey No. 125 New Survey No. 744 / 6 2nd Cross street pudhu
Naga Kuthalam Nagapattinam 609 801.
For Petitioner : Mr.U.Kathiravan
For Respondents : Mr.Sundaram
Government Advocate – R1 to R5
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6036 of 2022 &
WMP.No.6124 of 2022
ORDER
Mr.Sundaram, learned Government Advocate accepts notice for R1 to R5 and is armed with instructions to proceed with the matter finally. Hence, by consent of both learned counsel, this Writ Petition is disposed finally even at the stage of admission.
2.The petitioner, a resident of No.50, 2nd cross street, Pudhu Nagar, Kuthalam, Nagapattinam – 609 801 objects to the erection and installation of a transmission tower being erected by the 7th respondent, Ascent Telecom Infrastructure Company.
3.The proposed site of the tower is in a portion of the land at Second Cross Street, Pudhu Nagar, Kuthalam and admeasures 523 sq.m. She also alleges that a structural stability certificate of the property and the tower has not been obtained as per the advisory guidelines issued by the Department of Telecommunication and State Governments.
4. That apart, she would also allege that the land in question is narrow and will not be able to bear the weight of the cell phone tower and as a result, there would be a possibility of adjoining buildings being affected 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6036 of 2022 & WMP.No.6124 of 2022 detrimentally. She also points to the area being mixed in nature, including schools, commercial and residential buildings.
5. In all, the apprehension appears to be of great prejudice caused to the neighbourhood, if the cell phone tower were, God forbid, to collapse. She has filed a complaint and made representations before various authorities, arrayed as respondents to this Writ Petition, which have not received the favour of response thereto.
6. In addition, she alleges that the radiation from the cell phone tower would cause various illnesses and health hazards by virtue of the exposure to such radiation. The last of the objections is not relevant any further, in view of a series of decisions of this as well as other Courts, rendered after having examined the reports of various expert bodies constituted to study the effects of radiation upon society and its constituents.
7. The First Bench of this Court in a batch of matters in K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy V. The Secretary, Department of Telecommunications (W.P.No.24976 of 2008 and batch dated 05.03.2015) considered this very issue in extenso in a Public Interest 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6036 of 2022 & WMP.No.6124 of 2022 Litigation that prayed for framing of proper rules and regulations to cater to the erection of cell phone towers taking into consideration proper and structural standards, radiation and other allied repercussions.
8. The Bench took note of a decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Reliance Infocomm Ltd. V. The Sub Inspector of Police, Koyilandy, Kozhikode and others ( W.P.(C) No.16724 of 2006 decided on 12.10.2006).
9. Inter alia, the Bench had directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India to conduct an in depth scientific study of the issue and come to a conclusion as to whether the erection of such towers is hazardous and contrary to public interest.
10. A Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Director General of the Indian Council of Medical Research, Dr.N.K.Ganguly. While recommending a precautionary approach till further research data were available, the Committee concluded that there was not enough material available as on that date, to indicate any direct health hazard from exposure to mobile base stations.
5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6036 of 2022 & WMP.No.6124 of 2022
11. The Bench concludes, observing that the concerned authorities must take note of developments as and when they happen in the arena of science and technology, particularly mobile phone technology. Though this decision has been rendered on 05.03.2015, there are subsequent decisions as well, that have concluded likewise.
12. As regards the other objections/apprehensions that have been put forth by the petitioner, they remain just that - mere apprehensions and nothing is placed on record to indicate structural weaknesses or inherent defects in the structure itself. Being in the realm of hypothesis, I am not inclined to direct the authorities to consider the representation as it would involve stalling of the project.
13. In this regard, I also take note of a Writ Petition filed by R5, W.P.No.457 of 2022, seeking police protection to itself and its associates while erecting and commissioning the transmission tower in the property in question. A learned single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 12.01.2022, has accepted the request of the petitioner therein and has issued a direction to the Inspector of Police, Kuthalam Police Station to provide protection for 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6036 of 2022 & WMP.No.6124 of 2022 erection of the cell phone tower.
14. He also directed the authorities to ensure that the process goes on in a smooth manner, without giving rise to a law and order problem. Inter alia, reference is made to the same decision of the Division Bench as cited in the preceding paragraphs.
15. In light of the narration aforesaid, there is no merit in this Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
17.03.2022 sl Index : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order To 1 The District Collector, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthuri. 2 The Distict Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthuri. 3 The District Environmental Engineer, The tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6036 of 2022 & WMP.No.6124 of 2022 Nagapattinam Distirct 4 The Executive officer Selection Grade Town Panchayat Kuthalam Mayiladuthurai District 5 The Tahsildar Kuthalam Mayiladuthurai distirct 6 The State Human Right Commissioner, Greams Road Adyar chennai 28 7 Tamilselvan, M/s. Ascend Telecom Infrastucture private Limited Old No 32 New No.54, Butt Road St. Thomas Mount Near Kathipara Junction chennai – 600 016.
8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6036 of 2022 & WMP.No.6124 of 2022 DR.ANITA SUMANTH,J.
sl W.P.No.6036 of 2022 & WMP.No.6124 of 2022 17.03.2022 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis