Bombay High Court
Indus Towers Ltd And Anr vs Gram Panchayat Tanang And Ors on 6 June, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2025:BHC-AS:22549-DB
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 15903 OF 2024
1. Indus Tower Limited )
Having Circle Office at )
Office No. 2010, E-Core, )
2nd Floor, Solitaire Business Hub, )
Vimannagar, Pune-411014 )
Through its authorized signatory )
Lalita Vhatkar, Age 45m )
2. Ashok Yashwant Chougule )
Age 70 years, )
Occupation - Agriculturists, )
Residing at 300/1, )
Pnadharpur Road, )
Chougule Mala, Tanang, )
Taluka - Miraj, )
District - Sangli. ) ...Petitioners
Versus
1. Gram Panchayat )
Tanang, Taluka-Miraj, )
District - Sangli. )
Through its Gramsevak. )
2. Sarpanch, )
Gram panchayat, )
Tanang, Taluka - Miraj, )
District - Sangli. )
3. Village Development Officer, )
(Gram Sevak) )
Gram panchayat, Tanang, )
Taluka - Miraj, District - Sangli. ) ...Respondents
__________
Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Tejas Dande (VC) Sarvesh Deshpande, Pratik Sabrad, for the
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mayur Page 1 of 23
::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2025 09:40:26 :::
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
__________
CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATE : 06 JUNE 2025
JUDGMENT ( Per Advait M. Sethna J.) :
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the following substantive reliefs :-
"[A] That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ
mandamus or writ certiorari or writ in the nature of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ direction or order under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, 1950, quashing and setting aside the
impugned Resolution No. 3 passed by the Respondent no. 1,
Village Gram panchayat Tanang, Taluka - Miraj, District - Sangali
dated 08.08.2024 thereby cancelled the No Objection Certificate
(NOC) and stopped the installation work of mobile tower of the
petitioner at Gat No. 300/1, Tanang, Taluka- Miraj, District -
Sangli.
[B] That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ direction or order under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, 1950, be pleased to direct the Respondent
No. 1 - Gram panchayat, their employees, their agent, or any other
person claiming through the Respondent No.l not to obstruct the
installation of the mobile tower of the Petitioner - Company at Gat
No. 300/1, Tanang, Taluka - Miraj, District - Sangli and be pleased
to direct them to operate the allow the Petitioner to operate the
mobile tower without any obstruction and hindrance by
Respondent - Gram panchayat or by residents of the village or any
other person claiming through the Gram panchayat."
2. We have heard Mr. Anil Anturkr, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Tejas Dande, for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and with their
assistance we have perused the record.
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
3. The challenge in this petition is to a resolution no. 3 dated 8 August
2024 passed by the Gramsabha, Grampanchayat of Tanang, Taluka Miraj,
Dist. Sangli, Kolhapur. ("Impugned Resolution"). By such resolution, the
No Objection Certificate ("NOC") granted to the petitioner for installing
the mobile tower on the subject land owned by petitioner no. 2 is
cancelled by which, the petitioner is aggrieved and hence approached this
Court by way of this writ petition. We are called upon to examine the
validity and legality of the impugned resolution in light of the legal
position as applicable.
4. At the very outset, we are reminded of the following observations of
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (as His Lordship then was) in (K.R.
Ramaswamy vs. Government of India1 when his Lordship observed :-
"To Be Or Not To Be" or rather "to have mobile phone towers or
not to have mobile phone towers", is the question
2. Petitioners seek regulations qua where the mobile phone towers
should be installed on account of ill-effects of technology on human
beings. But, none of the petitioners have any conclusive material to
show such ill-effects of radiation from the mobile phone towers. The
apprehension arises on account of what is stated to be the different
studies to the effect that the existence of mobile phone towers may
possibly amount to health hazards. The moot point is, though,
whether there are actually any health hazard on account of mobile
phone towers, and if so, what are the precautions necessary."
5. The necessary facts for adjudication are as under :-
6. The petitioner no. 2 is the owner of land bearing survey no. 300/1
situated at village - Tanang who has agreed to install the mobile tower of
1. 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 5858
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
petitioner no. 1 on the said land. The petitioner no. 1 is the registered
infrastructure provider for the mobile network having registration granted
by the Department of Telecommunication (DOT) and having a license
under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
7. The petitioner nos. 1 after due technical study/survey/report from
all aspects including radio frequency, identified the location to improve
the network connectivity and after negotiations entered into an agreement
with petitioner no. 2 for installation of mobile tower on the land in
question.
8. According to the petitioners before starting work of installation of
mobile tower, the petitioners duly applied to the Gram Panchyat of the
said village Tanang on 28 August 2023 for issuance of NOC for
installation of the mobile tower and electricity connection.
9. The petitioner no. 2 also applied to the Gram Panchyat for the said
village for NOC by an application dated 4 November 2023. Such
application was filed along with the NOC from the adjoining villagers of
the said village wherein the villagers who signed the NOC also expressed
their desire for the requirement of installation of mobile tower in the area,
due to issue of poor mobile network connectivity. In pursuant to such
application made by the petitioner no. 2, Gramsabha of the said village
passed the resolution [bearing no. 10/1] on 20 November 2023 to grant
its NOC for installation of the mobile tower on the land/property of
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
petitioner no. 2. In pursuance of such resolution, the respondent nos. 2
and 3 issued to the petitioners an NOC on 4 December 2023.
10. The petitioner, after receipt of NOC from respondent no. 1, started
the civil work to lay the foundation for installation of the mobile tower
after incurring cost and expenses for construction and infrastructure.
According to the petitioner, about 90% of such work has attained
completion and mobile tower is almost ready for operation.
11. The petitioners contend that after completion of the
foundation/civil work for the installation of the said mobile tower due to
issues with some of the residents of the Gram Panchayat who raised a
objections to the construction of such mobile tower mainly on health
grounds, that the radio waives emitted from the mobile tower would be a
health hazard. To this effect a complaint dated 19 December 2023 was
filed by these residents with the Block Development Officer ("BDO").
The petitioners state that considering such complaint respondent nos. 2
and 3 issued a notice dated 22 December 2023 to the petitioners calling
upon the petitioners to stop work until the issues in relation to the above
complaint are sorted out.
12. The petitioners contends that the said stop work notice dated 22
December 2023 was illegal and respondent nos. 2 and 3 i.e., the Sarpanch
and Gram Panchayat have no authority to stop such installation of the
said mobile tower. In such circumstances, the petitioners filed an
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
application dated 29 December 2023 before the BDO of Miraj, Sangli
making a grievance on the unjustified stoppage of work of installation of
the said tower. The petitioner no. 2 in support of his application also
enclosed a report of the World Health Organization (WHO) and decisions
of the Court to support such application.
13. The BDO by an order dated 22 May 2024 inter alia directed that
the respondent no. 1 - Gram Panchayat ought to give permission for the
installation of such mobile tower, with a further direction to respondent
nos. 2 and 3 to submit a report to the BDO.
14. It is the petitioners case that on the basis of the said order dated 22
May 2024 passed by the BDO. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 thereafter
communicated on 18 June 2024 to the petitioner no. 2 that the stay on
the work of the mobile tower granted by letter dated 22 December 2023
is vacated. The petitioners would submit that thereafter one resident of the
said village along with eleven others with alleged ulterior motive made a
complaint dated 24 July 2024 to the Gram Panchayat of the said village
against the erection of the mobile tower on an apprehension, with regard
to the radiations being emitted from such mobile tower, being dangerous
to health of the locals in the village.
15. It is on such complaint again a notice was issued by respondent no.
3 on the even date directing petitioner no. 2 to stop the work of the
mobile tower. According to the petitioner such notice was issued to the
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
petitioners without an opportunity of any personal hearing to the
petitioners. Petitioner no. 1 furnished a detail reply to such notice dated
26 July 2024, to which petitioner no. 1 annexed all necessary documents
and Court orders to urge that the complaint of the villagers was based on
the misplaced apprehension on health issues.
16. On such backdrop, a meeting of the Gramsabha was called on 8
August 2024 in which the respondent Gram Panchayat passed the
impugned resolution cancelling the NOC granted to the petitioners on 4
December 2023 by a resolution dated 20 November 2023, which was
communicated to the petitioners by the Sarpanch and Gramsevak on 13
August 2024.
17. It is in these circumstances the present petition is filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions :-
18. Mr. Anturkar, learned senior counsel at the outset submit that the
action of the Gram Panchayat is high handed, arbitrary and in gross
violation of principles of natural justice, no opportunity of a personal
hearing was accorded to the petitioners nor was any intimation or prior
notice was given to the petitioner no. 1.
19. He would next submit that merely on the basis of a haphazard
complaint filed by some of the villagers with ulterior motive and without
verifying the facts, the scientific evidence respondent no.1 in a high
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
handed manner revoked the NOC dated 4 December 2023 issued to the
petitioners, pursuant to the Gramsabha Resolution No. 10/1 dated 20
November 2023. The petitioners were also directed to stop the tower
installation work in a manner unknown to law.
20. It is submitted that the impugned action of the respondent Gram
Panchayat to entertain such complaint alleging health risk from radiation
so as to form the basis of the resolution is without any rationale and
justification either in fact or in law. There was no evidence whatsoever
or/any scientific data on the basis of which the residents could even
remotely substantiate/justify such complaint. It is hence submitted that for
such reasons, the impugned resolution is ex-facie arbitrary, and is based on
extraneous considerations, which is untenable and legally unsustainable.
21. It is next submitted that the Gram Panchayat has no legal authority
and or technical expertise on such issue of EMF (Electromagnetic Field)
and related issues, which fall under the exclusive domain of Department
of Telecommunication.
22. It is then submitted that the State Government has issued a
Government Resolution dated 11 December 2015, to submit that NOC
once granted by the Gram Panchayat, cannot be revoked. It is hence
submitted that the revocation of NOC is without jurisdiction and contrary
to the said GR dated 11 December 2015. It is submitted that also the GR
dated 18 January 2024 issued by the Rural Development Department,
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
State of Maharashtra lays down comprehensive guidelines for setting out
telecoms infrastructure in the State of Maharashtra. In this context Mr.
Anturkar would refer to Clause - 10 B(3) of the Telecoms Policy dated 18
January 2024. The policy provides that no application shall be rejected
unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard on the
reasons for such rejection. Therefore, the impugned resolution of the
Gramsabha dated 8 August 2024 is completely contrary to the said
telecom policy and guidelines.
23. Mr. Anturkar would submit that once the petitioners received
permission for installation of the mobile tower and they have complied
with all the requirements for such installation, then the Gramsabha or the
respondent Gram Panchayat had no authority to stop work for such
installation that too after substantial work stood completed. Mr. Anturkar
would then refer to the 'Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016',
which are promulgated to facilitate the development of infrastructure,
through smooth execution of digital communication projects, across the
country by adhering to clear, transparent and consistent set of rules. It is
submitted that pertinently, the amendment in the said Rules read with the
Telecommunication Act of 2023 do not mandate a requirement of
permission for right of way in respect of a telecommunication network
(towers).
24. Mr. Anturkar would also place reliance on Section 14 (4) of the
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
Telecommunication Act, 2023 to submit that no person can have an
authority to take any coercive action, such as sealing, preventing access or
shutting down of the telecommunication network, with the exception of
natural disaster or public emergency. It is submitted that such exceptions
have not arisen in the present case, hence, the respondents have acted in
violation, breach of the said statutory provisions.
25. Mr. Anturkar would finally submit that the impugned resolution
dated 8 August 2024 passed by respondent no. 1 is contrary to law
considered by any standards, and thus deserves to be quashed and set aside
and the petition ought to be allowed.
26. Mr. Dande, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the
petition in countering the submissions of Mr. Anturkar. There is no
written opposition/reply filed to the petition. He would submit that a bare
perusal of the order dated 8 August 2024 would indicate that it is a
speaking and reasoned order. Considering the serious health issues
emanating from the radiations which are detrimental to the health, the
impugned resolution has been passed in larger public interest.
27. According to Mr. Dande, the respondent no. 1 has duly considered
the complaint made by 11 persons to stop the work of erecting the mobile
tower in light of the serious health risks to the residents of the said village.
It is submitted that only after due consideration of all such facts and
circumstances the impugned resolution was correctly passed by respondent
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
no.1 which warrants no interference.
28. Mr. Dande, would submit that respondent no. 1 had taken into
consideration the fact that the petitioners themselves spread rumors about
the ill effect of mobile towers and the very same person wish to erect the
same on the land belonging to them. Thus, there is clear vested interest of
the petitioners in this regard, as the majority of the villagers opposed such
installation. According to him this was a sufficient ground for taking the
majority consensus into consideration and passing the impugned
resolution.
29. Mr. Dande would then submit that there is no legal infirmity, and or
irregularity in the impugned resolution which according to him is passed
in accordance with law. It is premised on larger public interest, hence, the
petitioners is completely misplaced. It is only after comprehensively
analyzing all issues that the impugned resolution was passed in larger
public good, which ought not to be interfered with the Mr. Dane's
submission. He would hence pray that for all such reasons the petition be
dismissed.
ANALYSIS
30. At the outset, we find that the impugned resolution of respondent
no. 1 on 8 August 2024 is passed without any notice and hearing to the
petitioner. As the civil rights of the petitioners were being prejudicially
affected by such resolution, the petitioners ought to have been granted an
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
opportunity of being heard, as the settled principles of law would
mandate. In our opinion, as such course of action was not resorted, and as
not controverted by the respondents, there is substance in Mr. Anturkar's
submission that the impugned resolution is arbitrary, in breach of the well
settled principles of audi alteram partem.
31. We may observe that in the given facts and circumstances a NOC
dated 4 December 2023 was granted in favour of the petitioners for
installation of mobile tower on the land belonging to petitioner no. 2 by a
resolution No. 10/1 of the Gramsabha of the said village, on 20
November 2023. Such valid NOC allowed the petitioner to carry on with
such construction of the mobile tower, which could not have been revoked
except in accordance with law. Thereafter, suddenly on 22 December
2023 petitioners were issued a notice to stop work when substantial work
in this regard was completed, causing grave prejudice to the petitioners.
The justification for passing the impugned resolution 8 August 2024 is
rather peculiar, namely despite granting in favour of the petitioners an
NOC dated 4 December 2023, some complaints were filed requiring such
NOC to be revoked mainly on the ground that such mobile tower would
cause health hazard/risk to the villagers, due to the radiations therefrom.
The respondent no. 1 appears to have taken such complaint at its face
value and without any materials to support their decision that the
complaint as made would in any manner be justified.
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
32. Hence, we find force in the submission of Mr. Anturkar, that the
impugned resolution was passed merely on the basis of unsubstantiated
complaints based on purported health issues. Also, Respondent no.1
before passing the resolution has not independently verified the veracity of
such complaint on the basis of any scientific materials. The impugned
resolution suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and lacks the
rationale to support such action. In such view of the matter, we are not
persuaded to agree with Mr. Dande that such resolution was passed after
comprehensively considering all aspects/issues, which is not the case.
33. We find substance in Mr. Anturkar' submission that the impugned
resolution would run contrary to the Government Resolution dated 11
December 2015 ('GR'). A perusal of clause - 4 of the said GR indicates
that once the Gram Panchayat has granted the NOC, it cannot be
revoked/cancelled in any circumstances. Such contention is not
controverted by the respondents for us to take a different view.
34. We may now refer to Section 14(4) of the Telecommunication Act,
2023 which reads thus :-
"(4)Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time
being in force, no public entity, except with the permission of an
officer authorised by the Central Government for this purpose, shall
have the authority to take any coercive action, such as sealing,
preventing access, or forcible shutdown of the telecommunication
network established by an authorised entity, except where such actions
may be necessary to deal with any natural disaster or public
emergency."
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
35. We find that there are no such exceptional circumstances like
natural disaster or public emergency which would compel the
respondent/authorities to cancel/revoke the NOC dated 4 December
2023 already granted in favour of the petitioners, to otherwise justify the
impugned resolution, as the respondents have not placed anything
contrary on record, in this regard.
36. The petitioners have placed reliance on clause - 10B(3) of the
Telecom Policy dated 18 January 2024 to urge that no application shall be
rejected without giving an opportunity of being heard. So also, the Indian
Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016, as amended read with the
Telecommunication Act, 2003 aims at promoting and facilitating the
development of such infrastructure including mobile towers, across the
country especially in the contemporary modern times. Thus, the
impugned resolution dated 8 August 2024, could not have been passed
only on the basis of an unsubstantiated complaint which was contrary to
the statutory framework.
37. On a perusal of the impugned resolution, we find that it also lacks
reasons. It is a duty and obligation of a reasonable body of persons to
support its conclusion with lawful reasons, this being a sine qua non. In
the context of duty of a statutory body to record reasons in the Supreme
Court in the case of Sant Lal Gupta and others vs. Modern Cooperative
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
Group Housing Society Limited and others,2 has made the following
significant observations :-
"27. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also
judicial orders must be supported by reasons recorded in it. Thus, while
deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is
the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while
disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power
by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and
giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals
of sound administration of the justice delivery system, to make it known
that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before
the court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural
justice.
"3. ... The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of a
judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the
only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise
undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its
mind."*
The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an
order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute
subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order
indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further
challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of
natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons
recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making.
The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has
been rejected. (Vide State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar16, State of Rajasthan
v. Sohan Lal, Vishnu Dev Sharma v. State of U.P., SAIL v. STO, State of
Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi, U.P. SRTC v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta,
Ram Phal v. State of Haryana, State of H.P. v. Sada Ram and Victoria
Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity.)"
38. Additionally we also would be guided by the decision of Supreme
Court in the case of Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar and others 3 and
others where it was echoed that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion.
Without the same it becomes lifeless.
39. In the given facts and circumstances from the impugned resolution,
we find that except for citing the complaint which made some
2. (2010) 13 SCC 336
3. (2003) 11 SCC 519
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
unsubstantiated apprehensions about the dangers of radiation from the
mobile tower, there is no acceptable much less lawful any reason in passing
the impugned resolution so as to render such decision lawful. Also, as
noted above, the petitioners, in whose favour the NOC was already
granted earlier, were suddenly asked to stop work mid-stream without
being given any opportunity of being heard on the sole basis of some
complaint referred to in the impugned resolution, which would bypass all
settled norms of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness as recognized in
administrative jurisprudence.
40. We are not in agreement with Mr. Dande, that impugned resolution
is justified in larger public interest, in the absence of any material
whatsoever to buttress such submission. We do not find any independent
assessment of scientific material made by the respondent no. 1 before
passing the impugned resolution dated 8 August 2024. We cannot
therefore subscribe to the stand of the respondent no. 1, which is premised
purely on surmises and conjectures and the perception of some complaint
which apparently has no basis. Before adverting to such drastic action of
cancelling the petitioner's NOC, the prudent norm of an independent
scrutiny of such complaint was legally mandated.
41. We may observe that the plea of larger public interest which the
respondent seeks to canvass, seems to be based on misplaced
apprehensions. This would be clear from the following decisions of various
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
High Courts, which had the occasion to deal with such issues, many of
which have been cited by Mr. Anturkar. Such judgments are summarized
as under :-
42. In Biju K. Balan and others vs. State of Maharashtra 4 and others,
this Court in a similar context observed as under :-
"47. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in the analysis, referred
to in the report on possible Impacts of Communication Towers on Wildlife
including Birds and Bees (Extracted above), majority of studies have shown
impact of electro-magnetic radiation on humans, and, therefore, the
permission for erecting the TCS/BS and installation of Equipments for
Telecommunication Network is required to be stated.
48. We are unable to accede to this submission. The issue cannot be tested on
the numerical strength of the reports without examining the nature of the
scientific material and findings therein. It would be too simplistic way to deal
with the issue. Unfounded and unsubstantiated claims do not command
scientific weight. The mere fact that in majority of studies adverted to in the
aforesaid Report some or other impact of the electro-magnetic waves was
found on humans does not justify the conclusion that the electro-magnetic
radiation emanating from TCS/BS has adverse and ill effects on human
health and well-being.
55. Having examined the matters on the anvil of special burden of proof in
environmental cases, as expounded by the Supreme Court, in the case of A.P.
Pollution Control Board (supra), we find that the scientific material, as of
today, does not indicate any identifiable risk of serious harm on account of
non-ionized radiation emanating from TCS/BS and Equipments for
Telecommunication Network. Thus, we are not inclined to exercise our
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the basis of
apprehensions which are not rooted in the facts and supported by reliable
scientific material."
43. In Kapil Choudhary & Anr. vs. Union of India & Others 5 High
Court of Delhi has taken a similar view as seen from the following relevant
paragraphs of the said decision :-
"11. In the light of these facts, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the
court passed the following directions.
4. (2019) 2 Bom CR 625
5. 2016 SCC OnLine Del 2558
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
12. In view of the above, it is clear that there is no scientific data available to
show that installation of mobile phone towers and the emission of the waves
by the said towers is in any way harmful for the health or hazardous to the
health of citizens. There is no conclusive data to the said effect. The
petitioner has not been able to produce any data whatsoever showing any
such harmful effects on the health of human beings. The petitioner has also
not been able to show violation of any norms by the respondent.
"31. Before parting with this matter, we deem it necessary to mention that the
concerned authorities should, by way of communication through T.V., Radio
etc. bring it to the notice of the people at large that there is no reason for
them to fear the erection of the Base Transceiver Station, known as the Wi-Fi
Mobile Tower. The reason why we are saying so is that the impression in the
mind of a common man is that the Wi-Fi Mobile Towers erected all over the
State has the potential to cause health hazard due to the emission of radio
active waves from the said tower"
44. In the case of Indus Tower Ltd Vs. Grampanchayat and Others6
passed by this court has taken a similar view, the relevant paragraphs of
this decision, reads thus :-
"3. The question that has to be dealt with in this petition is, whether or not
the respondent-Grampanchayat could have passed a resolution, Resolution
No, 7, directing the petitioner to stop the further work relating to erection of
mobile tower, on the ground that some of the villagers have taken objection
for erection of the mobile tower, because they believe that the radiation
emitted by the mobile tower is harmful to the health of the villagers and can
possibly be carcinogenic.
4. The role of the Grampanchayat in the matter of erection of mobile tower
in the vicinity of the Grampanchayat, as rightly submitted by learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner, is confined to only issuing of No Objection
Certificate in terms of the Government Resolution dated 11th December
2015 and, therefore, we are of the view that if any NOC has been issued by
the Grampanchayat, as required under the G.R. dated 11th December 2015,
the Grampanchayat loses it's control over the subject of erection of mobile
tower.
5. In the present case, the Grampanchayat, i.e. respondent no. 1, has already
issued no objection vide it's certificate dated 30th June 2022 in favour of the
petitioner in the matter of erection of mobile tower in the vicinity of the
Grampanchayat and, therefore, we are of the opinion that Grampanchayat
could not have passed another resolution;
Resolution No. 7, which is impugned herein, directing the petitioner to stop
further work of erection of the mobile tower. There is no provision
whatsoever made in the G.R. dated 11th December 2015 conferring any such
6. 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1472
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
power upon any Grampanchayat and, therefore, the impugned resolution
passed by the Grampanchayat is devoid of any authority in law and as such is
illegal.
7. These observations would suffice us to say that the fear expressed by the
villagers is without any basis. We may add here that today also, there is no
change in the fact situation with regard to the absence of relevant scientific
material, after the position which obtained on the date of rendering of the
judgment in January 2019 in the aforestated case of Biju K. Balan (Supra):
The respondent no. 1, which has passed the impugned resolution, Resolution
No. 7, based upon the apprehension that radiation emitted by a mobile tower
has harmful and carcinogenic effect, is not based upon any scientific material.
It is well settled law that any agency or institution or person which seeks to
deny a benefit or right to another on a special ground like the ground of
mobile tower radiation being harmful to the health of the citizens, such
agency or institution or person has a special burden of proof to establish the
soundness of such a ground. But, in the present case, the espondent-
Grampanchayat has failed to discharge the special burder of proof which was
on it's shoulders."
8. In the result, we find that the impugned resolution, Resolution No. 7,
passed on 22"" July 2022, cannot be sustained in the eye of law and it
deserves to be quashed and set aside. We also find that the respondents are
required to be directed to not obstruct installation of the mobile tower.
Accordingly, we pass the following order:--
(i) The petition is allowed. The impugned resolution, Resolution No.
7, dated 220d July 2022, passed by the respondent no. 1-Grampanchayat, is
hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii) We direct that the respondents shall not obstruct the petitioner from
operating the mobile tower so long as the occupation of the mobile tower is
in accordance with law."
Considering the above, the resolution impugned in the said
proceedings dated 22 July 2022 was set aside.
45. Again in the case of Indus Tower Limited, represented by its
Authorised Signatory Vs. State of Goa, Through Its Chief Secretary and
Others7 a bench of this Court at Goa has held thus:-
"48. It is clear from the Policy 2020 issued by the Goa Government and the
Rules of 2016 that if the radiations are beyond the limit, the concerned
authority is empowered to direct petitioner to relocate the said tower or even
to stop operating it. Rule 13 quoted earlier gives right to the appropriate
authority to seek removal of Telegraph Infrastructure. Similarly, clause 11 of
7. 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 6863
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
Policy 2020 gives right to the authority to seek removal of mobile towers
which reads thus: --
'11. Right of the Authority to seek removal of Mobile Towers and
OFC and other related telecom infrastructure.-- Wherever it is necessary and
expedient to remove or alter any telecom infrastructure, the Nodal Officer
shall issue a notice to the applicant, being the owner of such telecom
infrastructure to remove or alter its location. On receipt of the notice, the
applicant shall, forthwith and within a period of thirty days, proceed to
submit, a detailed plan for removal or alteration of such telecom
infrastructure. The Nodal Officer shall, after examination of the detailed plan
submitted by the applicant, pass such orders as it deems fit. Provided that the
Authority, shall, having regard to emergent and expedient circumstances
requiring the removal or alteration of such telecom infrastructure, provide
reasonable time to the applicant for removal or alteration of such telegraph
infrastructure. Provided, further that the responsibility and liability, including
the cost thereof, for removal or alteration of such telecom infrastructure shall
be borne by the applicant"
49. Even if the petitioner is allowed to operate the said mobile tower the
powers of certain authority can be exercised if it is found that the radiations
emitting from such tower exceed the limit. However, the impugned order
passed by respondent no. 2 followed by the letter dated 13.06.2022 issued by
respondent no. 3 to the petitioner are clearly without any authority and
violative of principles of natural justice and, therefore, needs to be quashed
and set aside."
46. Also in the case of Muktipark Co-Operative Society Vs.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation8 passed by the Gujarat High Court,
the Court was pleased to take the following view :-
"31. Before parting with this matter, we deem it necessary to mention that the
concerned authorities should, by way of communication through T.V., Radio
etc. bring it to the notice of the people at large that there is no reason for
them to fear the erection of the Base Transceiver Station, known as the Wi-Fi
Mobile Tower. The reason why we are saying so is that the impression in the
mind of a common man is that the Wi-Fi Mobile Towers erected all over the
State has the potential to cause health hazard due to the emission of radio
active waves from the said tower."
32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have reached to the conclusion
that the petitioner are not entitled to any of the reliefs as prayed for in the
petition. The petition, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly ordered to be
rejected. No costs."
8. 2014 SCC OnLine Gj 9830
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
47. In Reliance Infocom Ltd. Vs. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat &
Ors.9 passed by the Kerala High Court, similar view in the aforesaid
decision was taken. The relevant paragraphs read thus:-
"7. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 has constituted the
Telecom Regulatory Authority. Section 11 of the Act deals with powers and
functions of the authority. Section 12 confers power on the authority to call
for information, conduct investigations etc. Clause 9.1 of Ext. P7 obliges the
licensee to furnish to the Licensor/TRAI, on demand in the manner and as
per the time framed such documents, accounts, estimates, returns, reports or
other information in accordance with the rules/orders as may be prescribed
from time to time. Licensee shall also submit information to TRAI as per any
order or direction or regulation issued from time to time under the provisions
of TRAI Act, 1997 or an amended or modified statute.
Clause 10 of Ext. P7 enables the authority to suspend, revoke or terminate
the licence of the petitioner. Clause 16.2 states that all disputes relating to the
licence will be subject to jurisdiction of Telecom Disputes Settlement and
Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) as per provisions of TRAI Act, 1997 including
any amendment or modification thereof.
8. We notice that the Panchayat has as on today no scientific data or relevant
materials to cancel the licence already granted on the ground that the
installation of the Tower would cause any health hazards. Licence granted has
been cancelled by the Panchayat based on an apprehension that the radiation
may cause health hazards to the people of the locality. Further Ext. P5 also
says that installation of generator would cause sound pollution. Petitioner has
not installed any generator as on today and if the installation of generator
would cause any sound pollution, evidently Pollution Control Board can give
appropriate direction and the petitioner will have to obtain necessary consent
from the Pollution Control Board for installation of generators, so that it
would not cause any sound pollution. So also, if the installation of Tower and
the emission of electromagnetic waves cause any air pollution, affecting
human health the Pollution Control Board can take appropriate measures
under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1991.
10. We are therefore inclined to allow WP(C). 18242 of 2006 and quash
Exits. P5 and P6 orders and there will be a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to
give adequate and effective protection to the petitioner to install the tower in
case any obstruction is caused by respondents 4 to 6 and their supporters."
48. In Vijay Verma Vs. State of H.P. & Others 10 the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh made the following observations :-
9. 2006 SCC OnLine Ker 247
10. 2015 SCC OnLine HP 2722
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
"17. It is evident from the perusal of the aforesaid reports that the exposures
to electromagnetic fields (EMF) do not have any notable effect on the health
of human beings. Evidently, the studies conducted till date by the two
premier organizations i.e. WHO and SCENIHR go to indicate that despite a
large number of studies having been carried out for the last two decades to
assess the potential health risk on account of emission of EMF, no major
adverse health effect has been noticed.
18. What in fact emerges is that radio frequency radiation from the mobile
towers and phones are in minuscule range and is lakhs of time weaker than
X-rays or UV rays or even normal visible light. In fact, so low that they
simply cannot cause any disturbance of electrons in the basic atoms of matter
or living tissue and hence classified as "non-ionising radiation".
19. Radiation in itself is nothing new and has been there since life began on
earth three and a half billion years ago. Radiation is all around us and we are
all actually submerged in naturally occurring ionizing radiation reaching us
from the outer space, even from the radioactive elements and materials
around us. Sun shine in itself is a familiar form of radiation.
20. We in view of the overwhelming material are of the considered view that
as of now there is no cause of alarm with regard to the possible ill-effect on
human health by electromagnetic Field (EMF radiation) from mobile phone
towers and mobile phones because the limits adopted in India cannot have
any biological effect on human. In fact, the limits set by India are much lower
than the internationally adopted recommendations of the International
Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) which account
for thermal and non thermal effect.
21. There is no conclusive evidence as on date which may have found any
adverse health effect by EMF radiation from the mobile tower or mobile hand
set by the WHO or SCENIHR and so long as EMP radiation power level in
vicinity of Mobile Base Stations is below the prescribed limits, there should
not be any cause or concern for adverse thermal effect on human beings living
close to Mobile Base Station or in the nearby vicinity.
22. Now in teeth of the report submitted by the WHO and another report
submitted by the SCENIHR, the individual opinions relied upon by the
petitioners to claim that the EM radiations from the Mobile Base Stations are
source of health hazard, for the time being, can conveniently be brushed aside
as having no scientific backing whatsoever and therefore, any such reports
relied upon by the petitioners shall have to give way to the opinion rendered
by the WHO and SCENIHR. However, it appears that some myths are being
spread and circulated simply in order to create fear amongst the people, but
then as aptly said by Nobel laureate Marie Curie that "Nothing in life is to be
feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so
that we may fear less."
49. All of the above decisions clearly do not accept the contentions
similar to the one as canvassed by the complainants in the present case and
10-wp-15903-2024.doc
throw much needed light on the vexed issue of potential health risks of
radiation from mobile towers, which is also raised in the given case. The
above, decisions in our view, are squarely applicable to the given facts and
circumstances in hand.
50. Before parting we may observe that in the modern age the
inescapable reality is that mobile phones are no longer a luxury but an
inevitable necessity, it be in the urban areas or in the remotest part of the
country. In order to facilitate seamless communication throughout the
country and to ensure that citizens of the remote areas are not deprived of
revolution in technology which manifest itself in the form of mobile
phones, mobile towers cannot be summarily dispensed with on misplaced
information. The judgments of various Courts cited supra makes the
position clear in this regard, leaving no room for ambiguity or uncertainty,
for the present.
51. In light of the foregoing discussion, we are convinced that the
petition deserves to be allowed. It is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A)
and (B). No costs.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]
