Madras High Court
M.Alagumeenal vs The Registrar General on 16 August, 2017
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.08.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No. 16756 of 2013 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 M.Alagumeenal ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Registrar General, High Court, Chennai-600 001. 2.The District Judge, Sivagangai District. 3.M.Thavamani ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Praying this Court for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of connected with the impugned order passed by the records connected with the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in D.No.3264/2013/A1 dated 07.06.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the the impugned order issued by the respondent in Reference Na.Ka.No.12344/2014/F2, dated 18.12.2014 and received by the Petitioner on 23.12.2014 restraining the Petitioner from erecting and commissioning the Telecom Tower at Door No.60, Pettai Road, Dindigul Comprised in T.S.No.930 and 931, Ward 5 and Block No.14 of Dindigul Town and to quash the same and consequently permit the Petitioner to erect and commission the said Telecom Tower. !For Petitioner : Mr.Om Prakash Senior Counsel for M/s.Ramalingam and Associates ^For Respondent : M/s.J.Lawrance :ORDER
The Petitioner, who is an infrastructure service provider constructing towers for installation of Micro Wave Equipment Base Transmission systems and other equipments meant for transmitting modulation Fond signals is before this Court challenging the order of the respondent/Corporation, dated 18.12.2014 requiring the Petitioner to obtain proper permission from the Corporation.
2.I have heard the submissions of Mr.Om Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.J.Lawrance, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Municipality.
3.The impugned notice refers to Section 277 of the Dindigul Municipal Corporation Act which deals with construction or reconstruction of a building. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would contend that the said provision cannot be invoked in respect of tower which is put up by the Petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel would also drawn the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.177, dated 17.2.2002 wherein, these towers have been exempted from the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules 1972 and Multi-storeyed and Public Building Rules, 1973 and by G.O.Ms.No.302, dated 12.12.2002, the Government has also directed that the installation of Base Transfer Receiver Station Towers shall be permitted in all the land use zones in the master plan. The learned Senior Counsel would also drawn my attention to the letter No.5742/C3/2008-G, dated 26.3.2009 by the Secretary to Government, Energy Department, Chennai addressed to the Principal Secretary and Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai-2, wherein, it is very clearly stated that all Municipalities and local bodies have been instructed not to insist upon building permission from the cell phone companies for erection of Base Trans Receiver Station Towers, in view of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.177. Apart from the above, Secretary to the Department of Telecommunications by D.O.No.17-2/2013-S-1, dated 8.8.2013 made it clear that necessary guidelines should be framed by the State Governments for issue of clearance for installation of mobile towers. In the said guidelines, it has been made clear that the telecom towers have been given infrastructure status by the Government of India and all benefits as applicable to infrastructure Industry should be extended to the construction of towers. It is also stated that considering the essentiality of service, sealing of BTS towers/disconnection of electricity may not be resorted to without the consent of the respective TERM Cell of DoT in respect of the EMF related issues. The said guidelines also require State Governments to frame guidelines fixing a nominal administrative fee and provide for a single window clearance for construction of such towers. It is seen from the letter, dated 2.6.2014 from the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration Department to the Principal Secretary and Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai and Director General of Panchayats that all efforts are taken to frame proper guidelines and comments have been requested from the authorities and that it is admitted case that as on date no such guideline has been framed by the Government. Therefore the action of the Municipality in insisting on licence/permission for construction of tower is not in accordance with the existing law as well as the Government orders issued referred to supra.
4. Hence the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings, dated 18.12.2014 are quashed. However, it is open to the respondent to take appropriate action after the required guidelines are framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu as directed by the Central Government in letter, dated 8.8.2013.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
To The Commissioner, Dindigul Municipal Corporation, Dindigul..