Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M Sree Rami Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 February, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ::
AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction) [
3209
]
MONDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
APHC010396642023 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION NO: 20312 OF 2023
Between:
M SREE RAMI REDDY AND OTHERS ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. M CHINNAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents.
2. The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
".....to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 2 to 5 in erecting the cellular tower in Plot No.73 in Survey No.114-2 of Rudrampet Village, Ananthapur District, which is very near to 140 feet distance from the residents of the Kattakindapalli Village of Rudrampet Gram Panchayat, Ananthapuram District as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 5 not to erect cellular tower in Plot No.73 in Survey No.114-2 of Rudrampet Village, Ananthapur District, which is very near to 140 feet distance from the residents of the Kattakindapalli Village of Rudrampet Gram Panchayat, Ananthapuram District."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions with reference to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition to the effect that the petitioners are owners of plot admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Survey No.114-2 of Kattakindapalli Village, which was purchased for a valuable consideration. He submits that it is a small village consisting population of 1500 and though there is no requirement for the erection of a cellular tower, the 5th respondent without seeking permission from the concerned authorities including the Gram Panchayat had constructed a cell phone tower in the middle of the village. He submits that as the erection of cell tower is hazardous to the health of the inhabitants of the village and they would be affected by the radiation emitted from the tower, the petitioners brought the same to the notice of the respondents 4 and 5. He submits that as the respondents have not taken any action in the matter, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition.
4. Mr.T.D.Phani Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 submits that in terms of the orders in G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 26.05.2023, the permission of the Gram Panchayat is not mandatory. He further submits that as per Para No.21 of the said G.O., which deals with the Establishment of Telegraph Infrastructure over private property, the applicant, who proposes the establishment is not required to seek any permission from the appropriate authority. He also places reliance on the decision of a learned Judge dated 05.03.2020 in W.P.No.5677 of 2020, wherein the learned Judge passed the following order:
"7. So far as apprehension of the villagers that the tower may emit some hazardous waves and radiation is concerned, this aspect has been dealt with by the Madras High Court in Crl.O.P.No.14444 of 2019 dated 07.06.2019, wherein it was 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 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."
In that view, when there is no positive proof of emitting radiation by the cell tower, the application cannot be rejected on that ground. Even otherwise, the apprehension of the villagers that the tower may emit radiation and other hazardous waves shall be dealt with by the Telecom Enforcement and Resources Monitoring (TERM) Cell of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), Government of India. 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. In that view, rejection of application is factually and legally untenable."
5. Considering the submissions made and perusing the latest G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 26.05.2023, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, merits no appreciation. Insofar as the grievance voiced by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to emission of radiation, they may make appropriate representation before the authorities of Department of Telecommunications or the District Level Telecom Committee, if they are so advised.
6. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. The interim stay shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.
_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 19.02.2024 Note: Issue C.C. for 4 days.
B/o.
BLV