Allahabad High Court
Aaditya Vikal vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 1 May, 2023
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Manjive Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11993 of 2023
Petitioner :- Aaditya Vikal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2.
In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices need not go to private respondent.
The present writ petition has been preferred for a direction commanding the respondent no.7 i.e. Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Gautam Budh Nagar to take appropriate decision on the complaint/representation dated 20.3.2023 submitted by the petitioner and further directing the State respondents to remove the Roof Top Pole (R.T.P.)/Mobile Tower installed over the house of respondent no.5 within stipulated period.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Department of Telecommunications of Ministry of Communications, Government of India by its notification dated 15.11.2016 has made rules to regulate underground infrastructure (optical fibre) and overground infrastructure (mobile towers) called the Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to Rules of 2016), whereby the Nodal Officer duly designated in terms of Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules of 2016 has to accord no objection certificate in exercise of its powers under the Rules. It is further stated that the aforesaid Rules of 2016 have been adopted by the State Government by means of a Government Order bearing No. 852/78-1-2018-45 IT/2016 dated 15.6.2018. He submits that in most arbitrary manner in utter violation of Rules of 2016 the permission for Roof Top Pole was accorded in favour of respondent no.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for redressal of his grievance the petitioner has also made detailed representation/ complaint but the same is still unattended and, therefore, the direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the representation/ grievance of the petitioner as per the Rules of 2016.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has not placed any document to substantiate that 'no objection certificate' has not been obtained before installing the Roof Top Pole and as such the allegations of harmful radiations and health hazards are unsustainable. Similar controversy has earlier been raised in Writ-C No.27937 of 2022, Subindar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein this Court relying on the judgment in Smt. Asha Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016(4) ADJ 389 (decided on 12.4.2016 PIL No.48084 of 2015) has declined to interfere in the matter vide order dated 12.10.2022 and as such it is submitted that present writ petition is also liable to be dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending consideration and accordingly, with the consent of the parties, this writ petition stands disposed of with observation that in case the petitioner's complaint/representation is still pending consideration, we hope and trust that the said complaint/representation shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law expeditiously but certainty after giving opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders in the matter especially respondent no.5 against whom it is alleged that without 'No Objection Certificate' he has got the roof top pole/mobile tower installed over his house.
Order Date :- 1.5.2023
Salim
