Narendra vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 8366 Raj

(1 of 3) [CW-9516/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9516/2021

1. Narendra S/o Shri Hardayal, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Village Sikarodi Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

2. Shree Prakash S/o Shri Ratan Lal, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Sikarodi Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

3. Rajendra Kumar S/o Rampratap, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Sikarodi Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

4. Sanjay Kumar S/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Sikarodi Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner Range, Bikaner.

2. District Collector, Hanumangarh.

3. Sub Divisional Officer, Bhadra District Hanumangarh.

4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bhadra District Hanumangarh.

5. Gram Panchayat Karanpura, Panchayat Samiti Bhadra District Hanumangarh Through Village Development Officer.

6. Atc Telecom Infrastructure Ltd., Iind Floor, Pooja Tower, Near Gopalpura Bypass, Tonk Road, Jodhpur.

7. Vinod S/o Shri Pratap, Resident Of Village Sikarodi Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. S.S. Gour
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. G.S. Chouhan, on behalf of Mr.
                                  K.K. Bissa
                                  Mr. Naved Khan Sindhi

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S. S. SHINDE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

(2 of 3) [CW-9516/2021]

Order

28/06/2022

Through this writ petition in the nature of Public

Interest Litigation, the petitioners herein seek a direction for

removal of the mobile tower installed by the respondent No.6 in

the land of the respondent No.7 at Village Sikarodi, Tehsil Bhadra,

District Hanumangarh. The petitioners have alleged that the

mobile tower in question was installed without seeking proper

permission from the authority concerned and hence, the same

deserves to be dismantled and removed.

Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the

respondent No.4 Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti

Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, wherein it has been pertinently

asserted that the mobile tower in question has been installed in a

private property owned by the respondent No.7 being a patta

holder of the land in question after taking due permission of the

concerned SDM.

The petitioners have not filed any counter to this

pertinent assertion made in the reply of the respondent. Thus,

there is no reason for this court to accept the allegation of the

petitioners that the mobile tower has been installed without proper

permission.

The apprehension expressed by the petitioners

regarding radiation emanating from the mobile tower being

harmful to the health of the people at large is based sheerly on

conjectures and surmises. A Division Bench of this court

examined this issue in extenso while deciding a bunch of writ

petitions led by D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No.2774/2012

[Justice I.S. Israni (Retd.) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.] vide

(3 of 3) [CW-9516/2021]

judgment dated 27.11.2012. There is no material to hold that the

installation of the tower in question has been undertaken without

following the guidelines laid down in the said judgment.

As a consequence, we feel that no issue of public

interest is involved in the instant writ petition, which is dismissed

as being devoid of merit.

No order as to costs.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J (S. S. SHINDE),CJ

82-Pramod/Devesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)