Atc Telecome Tower Corporation v. The District Collecor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.02.2016 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM Writ Petition No.37348 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 ATC Telecom Tower Corporation Pvt.Ltd Registered Officer rep. By Authorised Signatory Plot No.B 35, 1st floor Sector 32, Gurgaon Haryana-122001
...Petitioner
-Vs1.The District Collector Coimbatore District Coimbatore 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Coimbatore 641 035 3.The Tahsildar Coimbatore North Coimbatore 4.The Sub Inspector of Police Saravanampatti Police Station Coimbatore City 5.Sri Hari Apartment Residents Welfare Association, Rep. By its President T.Karthikeyan Amman Nagar East Saravanampatti, Coimbatore
...Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd respondent relating to his order Na.Ka.17750/2015/A1 dated 17.08.2015, quash the
same and direct the 4th respondent to give adequate protection to the petitioner to complete the construction of the cellphone tower in S.F.No.158/2, Saravanampatti Village, Coimbatore North. For Petitioner : Mrs.Hema Sampath, Senior Counsel for Ms.S.Meenal For Respondents: Mr.R.Rajeswaran, Spl.G.P., for R1 to R4. *M.Venkadeshan for R5.
O R D E R
Heard Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Rajeswaran, learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 4.
2. The petitioner is a Telecom Corporation and has filed this writ petition, challenging the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 17.08.2015. By the impugned proceedings, the 3rd respondent has informed the petitioner that on account of public objection, the telecom tower should not be erected.
3. Firstly, it is to be seen as to whether the 3rd respondent has jurisdiction to issue such order. In any event, the larger issue is as to whether mobile phone towers have to exist or not was considered in a batch of cases by the Honourable First Bench of this Court in K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy Vs. The Secretary, Department of Telecommunication, Government of India, New Delhi and others in W.P.No.24976 of 2008 etc batch dated 05.03.2015. In the said batch of cases, the apprehension was on account of the existence of mobile phone towers and the possibility to cause health hazard. The court took into consideration the decision of the Kerala High Court in W.P.(C).No.16724 of 2006 (N) [Reliance Inforcomm Ltd., Vs.
The Sub Inspector of Police, Koyilandy, Kozhikode and others) and the reports which were referred to by the Kerala High Court. Further, it also took into consideration the circular issued by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India in No.GR/TWR-09/01 FEB 2004, which pertain to Roof Top Towers for Cellular Mobile Systems and also to the report of the Departmental Committee of BTS Towers and then disposed of batch of cases on the following terms:- " 10. We are, thus, of the view that in a judicial proceeding these aspects cannot be analysed.
unchartered territory of technical expertise to determine the area where it should be installed. The Court, at best can place this matter before the appropriate Committee to took into this matter which the Kerala High Court already did and we have the benefit of the conclusion arrived at in those proceedings, as noticed above.
11. We are of the view that no further directions are required in these matters, other than to say that the concerned authorities would continue to analyse the materials as and when it emerges to look into the concern raised by the petitioners, especially, in view of the fact that there is no final view as yet on these aspects. Science grows and evolves and one does not know what may happen tomorrow. It is, in this context, we have made these observations.
12. Writ Petitions and the Writ Appeal, accordingly, stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, all connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed."
4. In the instant case, it has to be pointed out that the Cell Phone Tower has not been erected on the roof top of any private building, but on the vacant site. Hence, the impugned proceedings is necessarily to be held as not tenable. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and it is observed that no further directions are required other than the observation made by the Honourable First Bench of this Court. The decision of the Kerala High Court in W.P.(C).No.16724 of 2006 (N) [Reliance Inforcomm Ltd., Vs. The Sub Inspector of Police, Koyilandy, Kozhikode and others] shall also stand applicable to the case of the parties, who are concerned in this writ petition. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2015 is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(V) Amended as per order of this court dated 02.03.2016 Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) 22.03.2016 //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
nvsri To 1.The District Collector Coimbatore District Coimbatore 2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Coimbatore 641 035 To be substituted to 3.The Tahsildar order already despatched Coimbatore North on 02.03.2016.
Coimbatore 4.The Sub Inspector of Police Saravanampatti Police Station Coimbatore City + 1 cc to Mr.R. Meenal, Advocate, S.R.No.6816 + 1 cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.8846 + 1 cc to Mr.M.Venkadeshan, Advocate Sr 8773 (29/2/16) CTK(CO) EU(23/02/2015) kra 22.03.2016 W.P.No.37348 of 2015