Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 March, 2020
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
WRIT PETITION No.3715 of 2020
ORDER:
The petitioners seek writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 and 3 in preventing the 4th respondent from erecting JIO 4G Broadband tower in the site of 5th respondent in the midst of residential houses of petitioners in Survey No.447/2A1 of Vajaralapet, Madakasira Road of Penukonda Village and Mandal, Anantapur District, by considering the representation of the petitioners dated 13.12.2019 as illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of Provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Public Health Act, 1939 and also A.P.Panchayat Raj Act and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to erect cell phone tower.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, representing on behalf of 1st respondent, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, representing on behalf of 2nd respondent, Sri Vinod Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel representing on behalf of 3rd respondent and Sri Hema Chandra, learned standing counsel representing on behalf of 4th respondent.
3. The submission on behalf of the petitioners is that they are residents of Penukonda Village and without verifying the ground reality, the 3rd respondent granted permission to the 4th respondent to erect JIO 4G Broadband tower in the site of 5th respondent on receiving request from the 4th respondent. Learned counsel for 2 petitioners would submit that the 4th respondent did not take precautions for fire safety and lightening. There is every likelihood of emanation of electronic waves and vibrations spreading to surroundings resulting in serious damage to health of residents. He would also submit that there is also possibility of emanation of radiation causing harm to the inmates in the vicinity of the tower.
4. Dispelling the above arguments, learned standing counsel for 4th respondent would argue that as per G.O.Ms.No.146, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M2) Department, dated 19.06.2015 and the contents thereof, if any citizen has a grievance with regard to power emissions or radiations, all such complaints regarding radiation related technical details shall be dealt with by the Telecom Enforcement and Resources Monitoring (TERM) Cell of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), Government of India and therefore, the petitioners have to approach the said cell for redressal of their grievance. He would, thus, submit that if at all the petitioners apprehend the power emissions or radiation, they can approach the TERM cell for redressal. He would further submit that in similar circumstances, the High Court of Madras in Crl.O.P.No.14444 of 2019, dated 07.06.2019, passed an order stating that the apprehension of emission of radiation from cell phone towers has no scientific backing and extended police aid for erection of the cell phone tower. In the said order, it is held thus:
"6. This Court has consistently taken the view that no one can be prevented from erecting the cell phone towers on a mere apprehension about the effect of radiation 3 from the cell phone tower. The apprehension does not have a scientific backing. Till a positive finding is given in this regard, cell phone towers cannot be prevented to be installed on mere apprehensions."
He would, thus, argue that the writ petition is not backed up by any proof of power emissions or radiation and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Perused the material available on record and considered the respective arguments of both the counsel.
6. As rightly submitted by the learned standing counsel for 4th respondent, the petitioners have not produced any record showing that the ground based towers or roof top towers erected by the concerned cell phone companies for transformation of the waves cause power emissions or radiation. Even assuming so, in W.P.No.39439 of 2017, dated 28.11.2017, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad has held that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.146, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M2) Department, dated 19.06.2015, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the TERM cell of DoT for redressal of the grievance as the said authority is meant to look into the said aspects. Further, in Crl.O.P.No.14444 of 2019, High Court of Madras had an occasion to discuss the similar issue, wherein a learned single judge has held that there is no scientific backing for the apprehension that the cell phone towers emit radiation and till a positive finding given in that regard, cell phone towers cannot be prevented to install on mere apprehensions. The above decisions apply with all fours in the case 4 on hand. Except the apprehension, the petitioners produced any positive proof in this regard.
7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed, however, with an observation that if in future, as apprehended by the petitioners the cell phone towers emit radiation or other hazardous waves causing injury to the physical and mental health of the people in the vicinity of such towers, they can re-agitate the cause with scientific proof.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 04.03.2020 SS