Jharkhand High Court
Rahul Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 April, 2018
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1312 of 2017
Rahul Kumar Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Secretary, Department of Information
Technology and E-governance, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro
3. The Superintendent of Police, Bokaro
4. The Additional Municipal Commissioner, Chas Municipal Corporation, Bokaro
5. The Mayor, Chas Municipal Corporation, Bokaro
6. The Executive Officer, Chas Municipal Corporation, Bokaro
7. The State Coordinating Officer, Reliance Jio Infocom Limited, Ranchi
8. Mr. Jayprakash Singh ..... Respondents
-----
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rishu Ranjan
For Respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6: Mr. Amarendra Kumar
For Respondent No. 7: Mr. Bharat Kumar
For Respondent No. 8: Mr. Rajeev Kumar
-----
10/05.04.2018 The present writ petition has been field for issuance of direction upon the
respondents, particularly the respondent Nos. 4 to 6, to show cause as to how and under what authority of law, the permission has been granted to the respondent No.7 for installation of a mobile tower over the land of the respondent No.8 comprised within Ward No. 23, part of Holding No. 173/A, Rana Pratap Nagar, Chas, District-Bokaro, which is against the norms/standard/guidelines/rules prescribed by the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India as well as the notification No. IT/Tower Policy-30/2015 (part) of the Jharkhand Communication Towers and Related Structures Policy, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Policy, 2015') issued under the signature of the Secretary, Department of Information Technology & e-Governance, Government of Jharkhand for installation of the communication towers. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction restraining the respondent No.7 from constructing/erecting the said mobile tower forthwith by quashing the 'No Objection Certificate' (in short 'NOC') issued to the respondent No.7 by the respondent No.6 vide the letter as contained in Memo No. 127 dated 19.01.2017 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition).
The petitioner, who happens to be the resident of Rana Pratap Nagar within Chas Municipal Corporation, is aggrieved by the action of the respondent 2 No.7 in constructing/erecting a mobile communication tower in the premises of the respondent No.8. The petitioner has also challenged the 'NOC' issued by the respondent No.6 for installation of the said mobile communication tower in the premises of the respondent No.8. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent No.7 has violated the norms/standard/rules/guidelines prescribed by the Ministry of Telecommunication, Government of India as well as the Policy, 2015 for installation of the mobile communication towers.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.7 stating, inter alia, that before installation of the said mobile communication tower, the respondent No.7 had made an application for SACFA sanction to the Wireless Planning and Co-ordination Wing of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications, Government of India and the SACFA sanction was granted to the respondent No.7 with respect to the said site and the Clearance Certificate was issued to that effect. The respondent No.7 has also obtained the Structural Stability Certificate from the approved authority for installation of the said mobile communication tower in the premises of the respondent No.8. On fulfillment of all the required clearances by the respondent No.7 for installation of a mobile communication tower, the respondent No.6 has issued the impugned 'NOC' to the respondent No.7 for installation of a mobile communication tower in the premises of the respondent No.8.
A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 stating, inter alia, that in the year 2013, the Department of Telecommunication, Government of Jharkhand had issued the guidelines for installation of the mobile towers which had been made effective from 01.08.2013. The said policy has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The said guidelines have superseded all the previous guidelines. An application along with all the relevant documents for obtaining the 'NOC' from the Municipal Corporation, Chas was made by the respondent No.7 on 22.08.2014. Since the respondent No.7 satisfied all the terms and conditions, 3 the 'NOC' was granted to the respondent No.7 on 14.08.2015 for installation of the mobile towers at 17 different places. Pursuant to the order dated 14.08.2015, the respondent No.7 has already installed the mobile towers at 16 places. So far as 17th place situated at Kadamtala, Chas is concerned, an application was made by the respondent No.7 on 22.01.2016 for shifting the place of the said mobile tower. As per the request of the respondent No.7, the change of place approved by the Municipal Corporation, Chas does not amount to issuance of fresh 'NOC', as the same has already been issued pursuant to the guidelines issued in the year, 2013 and therefore the change of place has been conceded. The Policy, 2015 does not apply in the instant case as it is not a case of issuance of fresh 'NOC'. In the light of the Policy, 2015 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), the certificate provider has to get itself registered first under the provisions of Clause-3 of the Policy, 2015. After registration, the permission is given for installation of the mobile towers at the places enumerated in Clause-6 as Single Window meant for granting permissions. In fact, the 'NOC' was granted to the respondent No.7 on 14.08.2015 and the new policy has come into existence in December, 2015. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned 'NOC' issued to the respondent No.7 for installation of a mobile communication tower in the premises of the respondent No.8.
On perusal of the averments made by the respondent No.7 as well as the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in their respective counter affidavits, it appears that all the required procedures have already been observed by the respondent No.6 before issuing the impugned 'NOC' to the respondent No. 7 for installation of a mobile communication tower in the premises of the respondent No.8. When the said mobile communication tower was to be installed in the premises of One Durga Sharma of the said locality, the petitioner who happens to be the resident of the same locality, did not raise any objection to the same. However, once the installation process started in the premises of the respondent No.8, the petitioner objected the same taking different grounds including non-observance of the procedures prescribed by the Department of Communication, Government 4 of India as well the Policy, 2015.
On consideration of the entire matter, it appears that the petitioner may have some antagonism with his neighbour (the respondent No.8) due to which he has agitated the said issue at different forums including filing of the present writ petition. Otherwise also, the petitioner merely being the neighbour of the respondent No.8, cannot object installation/erection of the said mobile communication tower in the premises of the respondent No.8, if the prescribed procedures for the same have been duly observed before issuance of the 'NOC' by the respondent No.6.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned 'NOC' issued to the respondent No.7 by the respondent No.6 vide the letter as contained in Memo No. 127 dated 19.01.2017.
The present writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)