Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"33. Points sought to be clarified as per the reference order dated 24-3-2009 in W.P.(C). 
            No.6433/2009      and    connected    cases   are
            answered     in  the    above   background      as
            follows:The construction of a Mobile Base
Station by itself witll not give rise to a dispute purely of civil nature, to be relegated to a civil court, merely for the reason that a section of the public apprehends that it may cause some health hazards. Whether a larger question of this nature, as to whether such Mobile Base Station could cause any health hazard, could be decided in a petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, there cannot be any legal bar to such a course in appropriate cases, where sufficient materials are provided as to the scientific studies and norms/guidelines prescribed by the Government/Licensing authorities in this regard; which situation is conspicuously absent in the instant cases. If the petitioners have obtained all requisite licences/permits in accordance with the relevant statutes/orders/notifications in force and start construction/functioning of a Mobile Base Station, nobody can cause any physical obstruction to such work/operation, but it is open to them for raising a dispute and seek remedies available under the law.

Reverting back to the decision of the Full Bench, we notice that since the Full Bench has posted the matter for consideration of the case on merits before this Bench, it is apposite to refer to the following findings as well:

26. In the Full Bench decision, it is, inter alia, stated as follows:

"The observations by the Division Bench of this Court earlier, as per the decision in Reliance's case that, as per the scientific data available as on date, it was not established that the activity would result in any health hazards, stands in tact. The respondents have never brought it to the notice of this Court, any decision or material to the contrary, so as to draw a different inference. In any view of the matter, this Court does not propose to examine the correctness or otherwise of the finding in Reliance's case as to the instance of any health hazards; more so since the points of reference are rather something else. Similarly, this Court also does not propose to go into the merits of the contentions raised by the respondents that various other licences are also required under the relevant provisions of Panchayat Raj Act/Kerala Municipality Act/ Kerala Municipal Building Rules, etc., which, however, is strongly rebutted from the part of the petitioners as well...........It may also not be correct to say that this Court does not have the power to consider the various aspects as to the alleged health hazards which according to the reference Court is surprisingly vested only with the Civil Court. Suffice to say, it is not a question of absence of jurisdiction, but a question of necessity for interference. The instance of any health hazards has to be established with reference to tangible materials and evidence has to be let in; for which, it could be said that the matter may require to be adjudicated before the Civil Court. But then, it is for the concerned party to plead and prove as to the specific threat to the health hazards with reference to reliable materials and also as to the alleged infringement of any statutory prescription or violation of the norms prescribed. It is not for the petitioners to prove a `negative aspects' that there is no health hazard. When the petitioners have prima facie established their right to construct and operate the mobile transmission tower by obtaining all the required licences, it is for the objectors, if any, to prove infraction of their right, if any, and to show the dis-entitlement of the petitioners to establish a mobile tower by resorting to the remedy of approaching the licensing authorities, or to approach the Civil Court or by establishing their right in the Writ Petition for police protection. If any such objection is found prima facie established, this Court can certainly decline to grant police protection or in case the respondent fails to prove their right by documentary evidence, could still reserve his right to approach the Civil Court, as the burden to prove any such infraction is on the objector who asserts any such right. That apart, the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in `Reliance's case' that the scientific study and the materials brought to light as on date did not reveal any such health hazards still stands, as the said observation has not been successfully challenged and no material has been produced to arrive at a different finding."
It is again stated as follows:
"In 1995, Dr. Michael Repacholi commented in a report prepared by him as the then Chairman of ICNIRP:
All learned reviews have concluded that the RF fields emitted from base stations do not have any known impact on health. While research is continuing to determine if there are any health effects from very low levels, it is only possible to make decisions based on our present knowledge. Regulators are well aware of the fact that physical agents such as X-Rays, asbestos and smoking were once considered safe but later studies revealed they were not. In the case of radio frequency, studies have continued for some 40 years and laboratory techniques are extremely sensitive. While it cannot be dismissed that subtle effects will be found in the future, it is comforting to know that a large amount of research has been conducted and international standards have not had to be lowered for more than fifteen years. Another point that needs to be remembered is that RF emissions from base stations are some 50,000 times lower than the levels at which the first health effects begin to be established." It is also stated as follows: