CWP/3123/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 2956 HP

CWP No. 3123 of 2021

28.06.2021 Present: Ms. Vandan Misra, Petitioner-in-person.

.

Mr. Ashok Sharma, A.G. with Mr. Vinod Thakur,

Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Mr. Vikas Rathore, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Dy. A.G., for the respondents-State.

Mr. Balram Sharma, ASGI, for respondent No.-4 Union of India.

Mr. Chander Mohan, General Manager (Mobile),

BSNL, Shimla with Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.-6-BSNL.

Mr. Ashuhotsh Kalia, Legal Head, Airtel and Mr.

Birender Mahendroo, Sr. Legal Head, Airtel with

Mr. Abhishek Banta Sood, Advocate.

Mr. B. C. Negi, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.-8, Reliance, Jio Infocomm Ltd.

Mr. Sanjeev Maria, Chief Engineer (Op. South) and Mr. Sant Ram Sharma, Dy. Secretary (Law), HPSEBL with Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan,

Advocate, for HPSEBL.

Heard further. It appears that one of the major

issues of inadequate bandwidth and/or broadband signal is

erratic supply of electricity in backward and far flung areas

of the State, more particularly, the tribal areas.

2. We are informed by the official of the BSNL

that even though they have solar back up but the same is

based on outdated and obsolete technology using Lead

Acid Battery (Vral Battery). Therefore, in the given

circumstances, we are of the considered view that old and

outdated technology needs to be phased out gradually

and the batteries need to be replaced by Lithium-Nickle-

Cobalt-Aluminium (NCA) Lithium-Nickle-Magnese-Cobalt

(NMC), Lithium-Iron-Phosphate batteries or any other

batteries with latest technology in a phased manner.

.

3. We accordingly direct the BSNL to prepare a

road map for installing the solar latest panels initially with

regard to 191 towers, which are situated in extremely

backward areas of Himachal Pradesh and thereafter get

the same approved from the concerned quarters within a

period of one month from today and report compliance on

the next date of hearing.

4. On the previous date(s) of hearing, we had

asked the learned Standing Counsel for the HPSEBL to

obtain instructions, as to why, there are frequent shut

downs of the main transmission line for carrying out even

minor repairs in one of the distribution lines.

5. Today, Mr. Sanjeev Maria (Op. South), has

apprised this Court that HPSEBL is already seized of the

matter and would be resolving this issue shortly by

constructing sub-stations. He further informs that much

progress could not be achieved for want of adequate work

force, which now has been made available to the Board

with appointments of 1800 Assistant Linemen and

appointment letters having been issued to 250 newly

appointed Junior Engineers. The progress report in this

regard be submitted to the Court on the next date of

hearing.

6. During the course of hearing, it is pointed out

that some of the service providers TOCO/IPs, i.e. Indus

Tower Ltd., BBT Ist Floor, Tower-A, Industrial Plot No. 1,

Phase-9, Sector-66, Mohali, Punjab, American Tower

.

Company, Sebiz Square, Plot No. IT-C-6, IT Park, Sector-67,

Mohali-160062, Punjab and Tower Vision India, E--178,

Phase-7, Industrial Area, Sector - 73, SAS Nagar, Mohali-

160062, Punjab, have constructed/erected the towers and

are maintaining the same. Since, the aforesaid service

providers are necessary parties, they are ordered to be

arrayed as party respondents and shall now figure as

respondents No. 10, 11 and 12.

7. Issue notice to the newly added respondents,

returnable for 26.07.2021, on taking steps within two

days.

8. We also find that rates for laying cables in this

State are probably the highest in the Country at Rs.1600/-

per metre. Learned Advocate General, prays for and is

granted four weeks' time, to apprise this Court regarding

this aspect of the matter.

9. It appears that the State has formulated Right

to Way Policy, 2021, which envisages the establishment of

online portal. The State shall ensure that such portal is to

be set up at the earliest and in no event later than on or

before next date of hearing.

10. We are further informed that despite the

judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 8283 of

2012, titled as Vijay Verma vs. State of H.P. and

other connected matters, decided on 30.11.2015,

wherein it was clearly held that the telecom towers do not

emit radiation which can be termed to be 'harmful' yet.

.

many of the Courts are still passing restraint orders only

because the plaintiffs therein have alleged that the setting

up of towers emit harmful radiations.

11. Once this issue has already been covered

under the judgment passed by this Court in Vijay

Verma's case (supra), we really wonder how such suits

are being entertained. Therefore, let the records of the

following cases be requisitioned to this Court.

     Sl.   Case tile            Case number            Name of Court
     No.                                               where the cases
                                                       are pending

1. Munish & others Civil Suit No. 450 of Civil Court, Theog, Vs. Reliance JIO & 2020 Shimla others

2. Dev Raj & others Civil Misc. Civil Court Badsar,

Vs. Ajay Kumar & Application No. 323 Hamirpur, H.P.

           others           of 2020





     3.    Suresh Thakur & 4 of 2019                   SDM Court Theog,
           another Vs. Ms. Jio                         District Shimla, H.P.
           Pvt. Ltd. & others

4. Lalit Thakur etc Vs. Civil Suit No. 103 of Civil Court, Kullu, Sarban Kumar 2019 H.P.

     5.    General Public Vs.                          Court     of      SDM,
           Subhash Sood &                              Kullu, H.P.
           Others

                 List on 26.07.2021.

                                          (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
                                                   Judge


                                   (Chander Bhusan Barowalia)
                                              Judge
     June 28, 2021(Sanjeev)