Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)
V.J. John vs The State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2022 cites

Reliance Infocom Ltd. vs Chemanchery Grama Panchayat on 12 October, 2006

8. After having considered the decisions cited above and the contentions raised by the petitioners, I am of the view that this Court will not be justified in considering the question regarding the health hazards all over again in view of the judgments in Reliance Infocomm (supra), Sudevan (supra), Sundarrajan (supra) and Sudhakaran Pillai (supra). A properly constituted District Telecom Committee has considered the issue and found that the 10 th respondent can be permitted to continue with the construction of the mobile tower. The Panchayat has issued a building permit as is required. The 10th respondent has also obtained the EMF certification. No grounds warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is made out. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 132 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

G.Sundarrajan vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 May, 2013

8. After having considered the decisions cited above and the contentions raised by the petitioners, I am of the view that this Court will not be justified in considering the question regarding the health hazards all over again in view of the judgments in Reliance Infocomm (supra), Sudevan (supra), Sundarrajan (supra) and Sudhakaran Pillai (supra). A properly constituted District Telecom Committee has considered the issue and found that the 10 th respondent can be permitted to continue with the construction of the mobile tower. The Panchayat has issued a building permit as is required. The 10th respondent has also obtained the EMF certification. No grounds warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is made out. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 79 - Cited by 95 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Sudevan C.C vs Mundur Grama Panchayath on 12 August, 2013

8. After having considered the decisions cited above and the contentions raised by the petitioners, I am of the view that this Court will not be justified in considering the question regarding the health hazards all over again in view of the judgments in Reliance Infocomm (supra), Sudevan (supra), Sundarrajan (supra) and Sudhakaran Pillai (supra). A properly constituted District Telecom Committee has considered the issue and found that the 10 th respondent can be permitted to continue with the construction of the mobile tower. The Panchayat has issued a building permit as is required. The 10th respondent has also obtained the EMF certification. No grounds warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is made out. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - K Joseph - Full Document
1