Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neeraj Jain vs Telecom Regulatory Authority Of ... on 3 August, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
1 WP-12951-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-12951-2021
(NEERAJ JAIN Vs TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 03-08-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Akash Rathi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
This writ petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation has been filed
by Neeraj Jain, Resident of Bajrang Colony, Astha, District Sehore (M.P.)
praying for a direction to the respondents to not to allow installation of
mobile tower in such densely populated residential colony where he is
residing.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No.6-
Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. is installing mobile tower on the roof of the
house of respondent No.7- Rakesh Parmar, which is located in a densely
populated area, also having schools, hospital and residential buildings in close
proximity. It is submitted that the petitioner and other residents of the locality
submitted various representations/complaints before the respondent No.4-
District Collector, Sehore as well as before the respondent No.5- Chief
Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika- Astha for redressal of their grievance,
however, no action has been taken on such representations. It is alleged that
the respondent No.6- Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. has violated the norms of
minimum distance between two towers and other norms provided in the
guidelines issued by the Department of Telecommunications. The mobile
tower is being erected and installed in breach of the by-laws and guidelines
issued by the State Government. This is violative of the right to life and liberty
including the right to health guaranteed to every citizen under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
Signature Not Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on Rule 3 of the
SAN
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.08.05
16:53:43 IST
2 WP-12951-2021
Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika (Installation of Temporary Tower/Structure of
Cellular Mobile Phone Service) Rules, 2012 (for short the "Rules of 2012")
which explicitly excludes schools as the site of erecting tower. Reliance is
placed on the Division Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Justice
I.S. Israni (Retd.) vs. Union of India reported in 2012 SCC Online Raj
3393, wherein the local bodies were directed to be mindful of the health
hazards while permitting installation of such towers. It is further contended
that Rule 17 of the Rules of 2012 empowers the competent authority of urban
body to remove all such towers/structures which are found to be unsafe for
life of public and are installed in contravention to the rules. Rule 20 of the
Rules of 2012 gives power to the competent authority of the urban local body
to demolish such illegally installed towers. Reliance is also placed on the
order dated 11.07.2017 passed by this Court in WP-5443-2016 [Maya Devi
Verma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh] wherein it has been held that the
competent authority shall ensure that mobile tower is installed strictly in
accordance to the statutory rules and guidelines issued from time to time.
Reference is made to Clauses 4A, III and VIII of the Advisory Guidelines for
State Government for issue of clearance for installation of mobile towers.
Reliance is also placed on the Bio Initiative Report of 2012 published by Sage
Associate highlighting various adverse health effect arising due to
electromagnetic field from mobile towers and handsets which includes ill
effects on wildlife, cell growth, cell differentiation, DNA damage, altered
immune system, hormonal effect, impairment of metabolic and reproductive
system, effect on fertility production, brain tumor, sleep disorders confusion,
depression and appetite disturbance.
Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for
the respondent-State submits that the State Government has farmed Rules of
2012 and has therein provided mechanism for redressal of grievances of the
affected parties. He submits that the petitioner may be required to approach
the respondents No.4 & 5 for redressal of his grievance.
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.08.05
16:53:43 IST
3 WP-12951-2021
In view of the above, we required the petitioner to approach the
respondents No.4- District Collector, Sehore and the respondent No.5- Chief
Municipal Officer, Nagar Palika- Astha, by means of comprehensive
representation, raising his grievance with regard to installation of mobile tower
by the respondent No.6- Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. in the property of
respondent No.7- Rakesh Parmar. It would be open for the petitioner to place
on record before the respondents No.4 & 5 all such material which he has
placed before this Court. The respondent No.4 & 5 are directed to consider
and decide the said representation of the petitioner after providing
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondents No.6 &
7, by a reasoned and speaking order.
With aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
[email protected]
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.08.05
16:53:43 IST
