Madras High Court
Saktheeswaran vs The District Collector on 23 December, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 MAD 2137
Author: N.Kirubakaran
Bench: N.Kirubakaran, B.Pugalendhi
W.P(MD)No.17410 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :23.12.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD)No.17410 of 2020
and
W.M.P(MD)No.14546 of 2020
Saktheeswaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Madurai – 20,
Madurai.
2.The Block Development Officer,
Madurai West Panchayat Union Office,
Anna Nagar,
Madurai – 20.
3.The Tahsildar,
Madurai North Tahsildar Office,
Anna Nagar,
Madurai – 20.
4.The Panchayat President,
Podhumbu Village Panachayat,
Madurai North Taluk,
Madurai – 18.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/11
W.P(MD)No.17410 of 2020
5.The Amercian Tower Corporation (ATC),
Having its Circle Head Office at
No.45, Celestial Point,
Damodharan Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017,
Tamil Nadu.
6.Annam @ Annathai ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the 1st respondent from granting permission to
erect the cell phone tower by the 5th respondent in the 6th respondent's property
to an extent of 2,2004 SqFt, in Plot No.5, consisting in Re-Survey No.148/2B,
Pondhumbu Village, 2nd bit, Pondhumbu Village, Madurai North Taluk, Joint
No.4, SRO, Madurai District Consequently, to direct the 5th respondent to erect
the Cell Phone Tower in any other suitable location.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajaraman
For Respondent : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi,
Nos.1 to 6 Special Government Pleader
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by B.PUGALENDHI, J.] The writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus, forbearing the 1st respondent from granting permission to erect the cell phone tower by 5th respondent in the 6th respondent's property in Plot No.5, in Resurvey No.148/2B, Podhumbu Village, 2nd bit, Podhumbu Village, Madurai North Taluk, Joint No.4 SRO, Madurai District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2/11 W.P(MD)No.17410 of 2020
2.Heard Mr.R.Rajaraman, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.
3.The petitioner submits that he is residing in Plot No.6, EMD – Sangaya Nagar, Podhumbu 2nd bit Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai – 625 018. The 6th respondent is having a property in Plot No.5, in Resurvey No. 148/2B, Podhumbu Village, 2nd bit, Podhumbu Village, Madurai North Taluk, Joint No.4 SRO, Madurai District. There are children, elderly people and other weaker sections of people residing in the area and there are schools and hospitals in their area.
4.The petitioner contends that the 6th respondent without consulting anyone has proposed to let his property in Plot No.5, in Resurvey No.148/2B, Podhumbu Village, 2nd bit, Podhumbu Village, Madurai North Taluk, Joint No.4 SRO, Madurai District for erection of Cell Phone Tower by the 5 th respondent Company.
5.It is the case of the petitioner that if he Cell Phone tower is erected in the said place, the high frequency waves transmission erupted from the Cell http://www.judis.nic.in 3/11 W.P(MD)No.17410 of 2020 Phone Tower would cause several health hazarads such as headache, vision defectiveness, lungs, heart diseased and cancer, etc.,
6.In this regard it would be relevant to refer to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Manivannan Vs. The District Collector, Tuticorin and others, reported in 2019 SCC Online MAD 4348 [WP(MD)No.15974 of 2017 etc Batch , dated 29.08.2019], wherein this Court has elaborately dealt with the issue relating to the erection of cell phone towers and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder.
12.Issue No.1 Whether the BTS Towers can be permitted in the residential area, nearby residential buildings and schools? and whether it would cause any health hazards to the nearby residents?
12.1.Telecommunication is a necessary infrastructure for the growth as well as for modernisation. Information revolution had taken place through the use of mobile broad band / internet. It is the key source for empowerment of citizens. According to the report of the telecommunication, the increase in 10% of the penetration of mobilebroadband may lead to 1% increase in GDP of the country.
12.2.The Indian telecom industry is growing rapidly and it is one of the largest Telecom Industries in the world. The total number of wireless telephone subscribers in India as on 30.06.2019 is 1165.46 million and the number of wire-line connection is 21.7 http://www.judis.nic.in 4/11 W.P(MD)No.17410 of 2020 million, totaling to 1186.63 million subscribers to the telecom companies. The popularity of cell phone and wireless communication devices has resulted in proliferation of cell phone towers across the country and as on 01.07.2018, there are 18,33,842 cell phone towers in India and the overall tele density in the month of June 2019 is 90.11%.
12.3.The telecom towers are the backbone of telecommunication and to provide uninterrupted and quality service, the installation of telecom towers are inevitable. The telecommunication towers are known as Base Trans-receiver Stations (BTS).
12.4.The increased use of mobiles in India has raised the public concern over possible health issues associated with exposure to electromagnetic energy and electromagnetic field radiation and this concern is prevailing all over the world. The World Health Organisation [WHO] is conducting a detailed study in this regard. The International Commission on Non Ionising Radiation Protection [ICNIRP] has issued various guidelines and norms, as recommended by the World Health Organisation. The World Health Organisation, by referring to approximately 25,000 articles published around the world over the past 30 years, on health issues arising out of BTS Towers has concluded that the available evidence does not confirm the existence of any health hazards to the mankind from exposure to low level electromagnetic field.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5/11 W.P(MD)No.17410 of 2020 12.5.The World Health Organisation in its report No.304, issued in May 2006 on electromagnetic field and public health for base station and wireless technologies has concluded that, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak radiation frequency (RF Signals) from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects. The said finding was also reiterated in the year 2011 that no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone towers. In September 2013, with regard to a query, WHO has made an online reply that the status as on date provide no indication that environmental exposure to radio frequency fields such as from base stations increases the risk of cancer or any other disease.
12.6.The World Health Organisation had also established the EMF project in the year 1996 to assess the scientific evidence of possible health effects in the frequency range from 0 to 300 GHZ. Over 15 National Authorities are involved in the EMF project and it is also overseen by eight International Organisations. The Government of India adopted the ICNIRP guidelines in the year 2008 for basic restrictions and limiting reference levels of electromagnetic radiation from mobile towers. The above prescribed limits for EMF radiation from base station in India are 1/10th of International Prescribed limits of ICNIRP. The Government of India, Ministry of Telecommunication and Information Technology in their official memorandum No.17-63/2011-CS-III, dated 27.02.2014 issued EMF norms pursuant to the report of the committee constituted in compliance of the directions of the High Court of http://www.judis.nic.in 6/11 W.P(MD)No.17410 of 2020 Allahabad, Lucknow on issues relating to electromagnetic field radiation.
12.10. When a similar issue was raised before the Principal Seat of this Court, in the case of P.Balasubramaniam Vs The District Collector, Namakkal District, Namakkal [W.P.No.3006 of 2018, decided on 19.02.2018], a Division Bench of this Court, by following the decision taken in Dr.K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy's case, [W.P.No. 24967 of 2008, decided on 05.03.2015], cited supra, disposed the same as follows:
“5. It is not for this Court exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to assess the health hazards of erection and/or commission of high rise Mobile Phone Towers in residential areas or elsewhere. The exercise of study of health hazards, if any, of erection of Cellular Phone Transmission Towers has to be done by the Health Department of the Union of India and the Government of Tamil Nadu and based on such study, measures may have to be taken. This Court neither has the expertise, nor the technical knowledge to asses the effects and/or ill-effects of the radiation, if any, caused by the installation of Cellular Phone Transmission Towers.
6.It is believed that not only erection of towers, http://www.judis.nic.in 7/11 W.P(MD)No.17410 of 2020 but even excessive use of mobile phones has its own hazards. However, mobile phones seem to have become a part of life, where parents who can afford mobile phones, even provide children with mobile phones so that they can keep track of the children. Mobile phones are used by persons of every strata of society.Regretfully, we cannot but comment on our own inability to strictly enforce switching off of mobile phones even in the Court rooms and Court proceedings are often disturbed by ringing mobile phones. In these circumstances, we are not sure whether an order by the Court prohibiting erection of Mobile Phone Towers can be considered to be an order in public interest, though personally we may feel that restriction in use of mobile phones is imperative for reasons of health, reasons of concentration and may be even social and family harmony. ...
8.As a Bench of co-ordinate strength, we are bound by the aforesaid verdict dated 05.3.2015 in the public interest litigation initiated by Dr.K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy.
9.We expect the concerned Health Ministries to conduct necessary studies in this regard and to take such measures as may be deemed appropriate upon such studies.
10. Needless to mention that Cellular Phone http://www.judis.nic.in 8/11 W.P(MD)No.17410 of 2020 Transmission Towers can only be erected on obtaining of requisite permissions and approvals as per law.” 12.13.In view of the specific stand taken by the Department of Telecommunication and the reports of WHO, there are no materials on record to confirm the existence of any health hazard from exposure to low level electromagnetic field and as stated by the three earlier orders of the different Division Benches of this Court, this Court cannot dwell into those aspects as an expert.
Thus, issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
7.The petitioner has not produced any materials to substantiate that the eruption of transmission waves from the cell tower causes health hazards and without making any study in this regard, the petitioner has filed this writ petition as Pro bono Publico and we find no public interest in this writ petition.
Further, from the above cited judgment, it is clear that as of now, there are no materials on record to confirm the existence of any health hazard from exposure to low level electromagnetic field.
8.In the light of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
However, the official respondents shall ensure that the cell tower in dispute is erected by complying with all the requisite conditions. No costs. Consequently http://www.judis.nic.in 9/11 W.P(MD)No.17410 of 2020 connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
[N.K.K.,J.] [B.P., J.]
23.12.2020
Index : Yes / No
dsk
To
1.The District Collector,
Madurai – 20, Madurai.
2.The Block Development Officer,
Madurai West Panchayat Union Office,
Anna Nagar, Madurai – 20.
3.The Tahsildar,
Madurai North Tahsildar Office,
Anna Nagar, Madurai – 20.
http://www.judis.nic.in
10/11
W.P(MD)No.17410 of 2020
N.KIRUBAKARAN, J
and
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
dsk
W.P(MD)No.17410 of 2020
23.12.2020
http://www.judis.nic.in
11/11