Kerala High Court
Sandhya K.R vs State Telecom Committee on 24 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/5TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.24194 OF 2020(Y)
PETITIONER:
SANDHYA K.R.,
AGED 31 YEARS,
W/O VINOD MANOJMANDIRAM,
KARIMPINPUZHA P.O.,
PUTHOOR, KOLLAM-691 507.
BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE TELECOM COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY,
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001.
2 DISTRICT TELECOM COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN,
KOLLAM, CIVIL STATION,
KOLLAM, PIN-691 013.
3 THE MANAGER/HEAD,
RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM,
32/2552-C, SECOND FLOOR,
PUKKALAATTU KARIYATTU TOWER,
MAMANGALAM, KOCHI, PIN-682 025.
4 SECRETARY,
PAVITHRESWARAM GRAMAPANCHAYATH,
KARIMPINPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691 507.
5 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIORNMENT ,
SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001.
WP(C) No.24194/2020
:2 :
6 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOLLAM, PIN-691 013.
7 DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001.
8 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD,
KOLLAM, PIN-691 013.
9 DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
KOLLAM, PIN-691 013.
R8 BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIKUMAR, SC
(GOPINATHAN NAIR)
R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 24.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.24194/2020
:3 :
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2021
The petitioner is a housewife residing in Ward
No.18 of Pavithreswaram Panchayat. The petitioner would
state that she is living with her husband and small child at a
distance of less than 5 metres from the upcoming mobile
tower of the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, about
250 families are residing in the said Ward. Those residents
filed various representations before the Grama Panchayat and
District Telecom Committee as also to the District Collector,
raising serious concern and anguish over erection of 4G/5G
mobile tower. The District Telecom Committee, however,
permitted the mobile tower construction. One Sasidharan
Achary filed Ext.P2 appeal against the decision of the District
Telecom Committee before the 1 st respondent. The 1st
WP(C) No.24194/2020
respondent considered the matter and passed Ext.P3 order. It
is aggrieved by the said Ext.P3 order that this writ petition has
been filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the building permit has been granted to the Telecom
Company for erection of mobil tower without complying with
the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules. The learned counsel
would specifically contend that Rule 12 of the Kerala
Panchayat Building Rules, has been violated. Therefore, this
Court shall interfere in the matter and stop the erection of the
mobile tower.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
argued that the decision of the District Telecom Committee as
reflected in Ext.P1 is unsustainable because the Committee
did not include the required persons having technical
knowledge in the matter. The learned counsel for the
petitioner would point out that in Ext.R3(b) Government Order,
the Government has laid down the manner of constituting the
District Telecom Committee. There should be 14 members in
WP(C) No.24194/2020
the District Telecom Committee including the District Collector
as its Chairman. The technical members were not consulted
while passing Ext.P1 order, contended the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2,
5, 6 and 9 and learned counsel appearing for the 3rd
respondent.
5. A perusal of Ext.P1 would show that the District
Telecom Committee has considered the grievance raised by
one Sri.S.Sasidharan. The fact that there are certain
residences around the place in question, was also considered.
The District Telecom Committee came to the conclusion that
there is no harm to the health of the public by the erection of
mobile tower since the tower is at a safe distance as per the
norms stipulated.
6. In the appeal preferred against Ext.P1, the State
Telecom Committee also dealt with the matter in detail. The
State Telecom Committee observed that-
WP(C) No.24194/2020
"7. The Deputy Director General (C), Department of
Telecommunications (Kerala LSA), informed that for a
Ground Based Tower, safe distance means distance from
antenna's direct point and the DDG has made it clear that
as per the prevailing guidelines for the erection of mobile
towers, the restrictions for the distance to be kept is based
on the height of the antenna in the tower and of the
building adjacent to it and in the present case, there is no
such situations in the locality. Technically the tower site is
complying with the standards fixed by Government of
India. The DDG, DoT, Kerala has also mentioned that
Government of India have specified certain limits for a
radiation from the tower when the antenna is mounted and
here the power density is within the safe standards.
8. In light of the present necessity for sufficient
internet connectivity for online classes and for the Work
from Home conditions owing to the spread of COVID-19, it
is highly essential to install sufficient towers in the required
locations for keeping seamless connectivity.
9. The whole matter was examined in detail with reference
to the report submitted by the concerned parties and the
verbal contentions put forth at the time of hearing. As per
the existing norms, permission for tower installation is
given only after submission of clearances or certificates or
both from Standing Advisory Committee on Radio
Frequency Allocation (SACFA), local bodies, Fire Safety
Department, TERM Cells (DoT) and any other authorities
concerned and clearance for the installation of mobile
towers shall be given by the respective Local Self
Government (LSG) Institutions. Also, as per the prevailing
guidelines on tower installation for a tower working in 900
frequency, the tower should radiate only in the power
density of 0.45 Watt/m2, for 1800 frequency, power
density should be 0.9 Watt/m2 and for 2100 frequency
and above, 1 Watt/m2. From the report of Department of
Telecommunication, it is learned that TERM Cell- Kerala
had issued a Pre-EMF Acknowledgement Receipt for the
new tower site. Certifying that all general public areas
around the tower will be within safe EMR exposure limits
as per peak traffic measurement, after the antenna starts
radiating. Accordingly, the proposed tower is well within
the standard limits with respect to the EMR guidelines of
Department of Telecom, Government of India. Till date,
no conclusive evidence has emerged that EMR from
mobile towers are harmful. Hence, the apprehensions
WP(C) No.24194/2020
raised by the complainant is not based on scientific facts.
It is also to be noticed that in India, there exist very
stringent norms for the installation of Mobile Towers
compared to other international standards for EMF
exposure limits. Department of Telecommunications
(DoT) has set up a web portal, in which the details of all
Mobile Towers working in a locality and its compliance
status can be verified by general public
(www.tarangsanchar.gov.in), wherein a provision for the
general public to make request for the measurement of
the site by TERM Cell on payment of a prescribed fee.
The matter was also examined by the District Telecom
Committee (DTC), Kollam, comprising of experts from
various field and found no base for the grievance of the
petitioner."
This Court find no reason to disbelieve the findings in Ext.P3,
in order to set aside the same.
7. It is to be noted that though the petitioner has a
case that the District Telecom Committee did not include the
requisite technical members, except for bald allegations, there
is no specific allegation as to which technical members were
not consulted. The petitioner has not preferred a complaint
before any of the competent authorities herself. If the
petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of the building permit
to the 3rd respondent, the remedy of the petitioner is before the
competent Tribunal.
WP(C) No.24194/2020
In the circumstances, this Court finds no merit to
interfere in the matter. The writ petition is therefore disposed
of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Local Self
Government Tribunal against issuance of building permit, if
she is so advised.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/24.02.2021
WP(C) No.24194/2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.7.2020
2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 17.8.2020
SUBMITTED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ODER DATED 22.10.2020
SUBMITTED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC
17424/2020 DATED 24.8.2020
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY EMF CERTIFICATE FOR
RADIATION DATED 21/05/2019 ISSUED BY
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TERM, GANDHI NAGAR,
KOCHI-20.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF SACFA APPLICATION FORM
DATED 21/05/2019 SUBMITTED BY 3RD
RESPONDENT IN THE OFFICE OF 4TH
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH MOBILE TOWER
PERMIT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF UNDATED MOBILE TOWER
PLAN SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT IN
THE OFFICE OF 4TH RESPONDENT FOR
OBTAINING PERMIT FOR ERECTION OF
MOBILE TOWER.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R3(a) A TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT DATED
03.08.2019
EXHIBIT R3(b) A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS)No.25/2014/ITD
DATED 02-08-2014
EXHIBIT R3(c) A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(Ms)No.31/2014/ITD
DATED 05-11-2014
EXHIBIT R3(d) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.DOT/KRL/6-
14/DM-CORR/2019-20/DATED 24-03-2020
WP(C) No.24194/2020
EXHIBIT R3(e) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.AS-25/1/2019-
OFFICE OF DIR (AS-V) DATED 21-03-2020
EXHIBIT R3(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE EMF CERTIFICATION
FOR RADIANCE COMPLIANCE DATED
05/03/2019
EXHIBIT R3(g) A TRUE COPY OF THE STABILITY
CERTIFICATE DATED 23.05.2019
EXHIBIT R3(h) A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF W.P.
(C)No.16601 OF 2020 DATED 22.10.2020
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
SR
