Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)
Indus Towers Ltd vs Kanakpur Kansad Nagarpalika & on 15 July, 2014 cites

Indus Towers Ltd vs State Of Gujarat & on 16 December, 2013

4. Learned   senior   counsel,   Shri   Shalin   Mehta  appearing   with   learned   advocate,   Ms.Vidhi   Bhatt  for   the   petitioner   referred   to   the   papers   and  submitted   that   the   basic   requirement   for   the  installation   of   such   mobile   tower   as   provided   in  Regulation 21 of the GDCR provides for the control  of   Signs   (Hoardings)   and   Outdoor   Display  Structures   and   Paging   Tower   and   Telephone   Tower.  He emphasized the Regulation 21.11, which relates  that   the   Telecommunication   Infrastructure,   which  includes such mobile tower and submitted that the  requirements which are necessary to be fulfilled,  are   stability   certificate   for   the   structure   and  the   permission   from   the   Standing   Advisory  Committee   on   Radio   Frequency   Location   (SACFA)  issued   by   the   Ministry   of   Telegraphic  Communications. Learned senior counsel, Shri Mehta  submitted   that   they   have   complied   with   necessary  requirement   and   in   fact,   "No   Objection  Page 4 of 9 C/SCA/16307/2013 JUDGMENT Certificate"   has   been   granted   by   the   respondent  no.1­Municipality,   however   only   because   of   the  pressure   from   the   residents   of   the   society,   the  respondent­Municipality   has   issued   notice   to   get  "No   Objection   Certificate",   which   is   not  requirement under any law. Learned senior counsel,  Shri   Mehta   submitted   that   in   fact,   the  installation of such mobile tower has been held to  be valid and orders have been passed by the courts  including   the   High   Court   in  Special   Civil    Application     No.14591/2008    in   case   of  Indus   Tower  Ltd.   Vs.   The   State   of   Gujarat   &   Ors.,   which   is  quoted. Learned senior counsel, Shri Mehta stated  that   the   impugned   notice   dated   30.08.2013   asking  the   petitioner   to   produce   "No   Objection  Certificate" from the residents of the society is  incompatible   with   the   provisions   of   the   GDCR.   He  emphasized that it would affect the rights of the  petitioner   to   carry   on   trade   and   business   under  Article   19(1)(g)   of   the  Constitution   of   India.  Learned senior counsel, Shri Mehta referred to the  papers   including   the   book   log   issued   by   the  Ministry   of   Communication   &   IP,   Government   of  India,   which   is   produced   at   Annexure­R3   and  Page 5 of 9 C/SCA/16307/2013 JUDGMENT submitted that the research and technical experts  have considered this aspect and adverse effect and  Radio Frequency. He tried to submit that signal or  radiation  from the tower of the mobile  phone are  causing   adverse   effect   which   are   not   conclusive  aspect   and   the   cause   and   effect   have   not   been  established.   However   as   and   by   way   of  precautionary   major   as   stated   are   taken   and   the  precautionary guidelines for the mobile resources  have been issued. He has referred to other papers  and also submitted that after considering the pros  and   cons,   such   permission   have   been   granted   and  the   petitioner   has   been   granted   registration   for  such   business   of   telegraphic   communication   and,  therefore,   any   such   notice   is   without   any   basis.  Learned senior counsel, Shri Mehta submitted that  assuming   without   admitting   about   any   adverse  effect, maximum possible precaution could be taken  but   the   installation   cannot   be   stopped   or  objected. Therefore, he submitted that the present  petition may be allowed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document
1