Rajasthan High Court
Dinesh Kumar Balodiya S/O ... vs Union Of India on 15 July, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8993/2022
1. Dinesh Kumar Balodiya S/o Deepchand, Aged About 62
Years, R/o Plot No. 18 Sachivalya Vihar, Gram Kalyanpura,
Sanganer, Jaipur Rajasthan, 302020
2. Dhanraj Khati S/o Jagdish Lal Khati, Aged About 50 Years,
R/o 12 Sachivalaya Vihar, Kalyanpura, Sanganer, Jaipur
302020 Raj.
3. Ram Mohan Khandelwal S/o Kedar Nath Gupta, Aged
About 63 Years, R/o 23, Sachivalaya Vihar, Kalyanpura,
Sanganer, Jaipur 302020 Raj.
4. Mukesh Kumar Jangid S/o Hanuman Prasad Jangid, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o 11, Sachivalaya Vihar, Kalyanpura,
Sanganer, Jaipur 302020 Raj.
5. Rajendra Kumar Jangid S/o Gyarsilal Jangid, Aged About
35 Years, 13, Sachivalaya Vihar Extension, Kalyanpura,
Sanganer, Jaipur 302020 Raj.
6. Ramraj Jangid S/o Kalyan Mal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
13, Sachivalaya Vihar, Gram Kalyanpura, Sanganer Jaipur
302020 Raj.
7. Madan Singh Khangar S/o Hajari Singh Khangar, Aged
About 50 Years, R/o Plot No. 4-A, Sachivalaya Vihar, Gram
Kalyanpura, Sanganer Jaipur 302020 Raj.
8. Gopal Jangid S/o Gyarsi Lal, Aged About 25 Years, 13,
Sachivalaya Vihar, Gram Kalyanpura, Sanganer, Jaipur
302020 Raj.
9. Bajrang Lal S/o Kalyan Mal, Aged About 75 Years, R/o 13,
Sachivalaya Vihar, Gram Kalyanpura, Sanganer, Jaipur
302020 Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary Government Of India,
New Delhi
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Urban
Development Department Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
3. Jio Fiber Private Limited, Ist Floor, Anand Bhawan, Sansar
Chand Road, Jaipur 302001 Through Authorized
Signatory. (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2022 at 09:27:19 PM)
(2 of 5) [CW-8993/2022]
4. Smt. Madhuri Singh W/o Pramod Singh, Plot No. 22A
Sachivalya Vihar, Gram Kalyanpura, Sanganer Jaipur Raj.
5. Collector, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan
6. Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Address-Jaipur.
Address Dc Revenue First Municipal Corporation Jaipur
Greater Jaipur (Raj.)
7. Commissioner Jaipur Development Authority, Ramkishore
Vyas Bhawan, Indira Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur 302004 Raj.
8. Police Commissioner, Commissionerate Near Government
Press, Jaipur Raj.
9. Additional Police Commissioner (Second),
Commissionerate, Jaipur Raj.
10. Chief Manager, Department Of Tele Communication Near
Government Press, Jaipur Raj.
11. Director General Cellular Operator Association Of India,
New Delhi
12. Sho Muhana Police Station Sanganer, Jaipur Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Mathur
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
15/07/2022
The petitioners, who are resident of Sachivalya Vihar, Gram
Kalyanpura, Sanganer, Jaipur, have filed this writ petition assailing
the legality and validity of the order dated 21.04.2022 issued by
the Municipal Corporation (Greater), Jaipur whereby, permission
for erection, installment and establishment of an above ground
telegraph structure has been extended in favour of the respondent
No.3.
(3 of 5) [CW-8993/2022]
Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the
petitioners has made two-fold submissions. First submission is
that the mobile tower is being erected on a building belonging to
the respondent No.4 which is in violation of Clause 3-c of the
permission dated 21.04.2022 which permits the licensee to
erect/install infrastructure on an open land only. His second limb
of submissions is that the permission dated 21.04.2022 is in
violation of the direction(s) issued by a Division Bench of this
Court in case of Justice I.S. Israni (Retd.) & Anr. versus
Union of India & Ors.: 2013 2 WLC 602 decided on
27.11.2012. He submits that despite service of legal notice dated
25.06.2022, the respondents are not taking action against the
erection of the mobile tower. Learned counsel has relied upon an
order of this Court dated 09.03.2022 passed in SB Civil Writ
Petition No.831/2019: Shri Labana Gawaria Sikh Samaj
Sewa Samiti versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. to buttress his
submission. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed
and the permission dated 21.04.2022 be quashed and set aside.
Heard. Considered.
First Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that under permission dated 21.04.2022, the respondent No.3
could erect/install the infrastructure on an open land only, cannot
be countenanced in view of Clause 3-e of the permission order
which permits erection of the mobile tower in a building also
provided its structural stability is ensured by the licensee and the
towers and posts/other foundations are designed accordingly.
Undeniably, it has not been the case of the petitioners that the
respondent No.3 is erecting telegraphic infrastructure without
ensuring structural stability of the tower/post in the building in
(4 of 5) [CW-8993/2022]
which the erection is permitted. Insofar as another submission of
learned counsel for the petitioners based on the judgment of this
Court in case of Justice I.S. Israni (Retd.) (supra) is concerned,
this Court does not find from any of the directions issued therein
that erection of a mobile tower in a residential locality is
prohibited. Learned counsel has relied upon Para 227 (8) of the
judgment dated 27.11.2012 which enjoins upon the State
Government and the local authorities to take decision on case wise
basis with regard to installation of towers in the densely populated
areas in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners
could not cite any law before this Court which restrains installation
of the mobile tower in the densely populated areas except his
objection that the mobile tower is being erected in violation of
Clause 3-c of the permission dated 21.04.2022 which did not
favour with the Court. No other illegality in the order has been
pointed out.
The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners
on the case of Shri Labana Gawaria Sikh Samaj Sewa Samiti
(supra) is wholly misconceived. That case was disposed of in
terms of concession extended by the learned counsel for the
respondents to shift mobile tower from the existing place, which
was almost in front of the gate of the Gurudwara and was creating
inconvenience to the devotees visiting the Gurudwara, by 15-20
feets away to remove the hurdle caused on account of erection of
mobile tower in front of the gate of the Gurudwara.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the subject place is within the distance of five hundred meters of a
Jail and hence, in view of direction No.3 issued by this Court in
case of Justice I.S. Israni (Retd.) (supra), the mobile tower in
(5 of 5) [CW-8993/2022]
question is liable to be removed. However, when inquired, he
could not point out from the memo of the writ petition a whisper
of averment in this regard. In absence of any factual foundation in
this regard, contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners
does not merit acceptance.
Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/45
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
