JUDGMENT :

SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Nobody is present for the respondents although the respondents have been duly served with notice for final disposal at the admission stage, not once but twice, as noted by this court in the order dated 8th June 2023. By this order, it was also made clear that respondent nos. 1 to 3, who were absent, were being granted further opportunity as a last chance to make their submissions in the matter, while alerting them that no further opportunity shall be granted to the parties for making their submissions and accordingly, the matter was stood over to 3rd July 2023. On 3rd July 2023, the board did not reach and, therefore, it was adjourned to 19th July 2023 and again it was adjourned to 20th July 2023 i.e. this date. The daily board of today puts the parties on sufficient notice that today this matter would be taken up for final disposal; yet, the respondents are absent.

2. Considering the fact that sufficient opportunity has already been granted to the respondents and also the fact that this matter has been already kept for final disposal at admission stage, today we have finally heard learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Hence, RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith in terms of the order dated 8th June 2023.

3. The question that has to be dealt with in this petition is, whether or not the respondent-Grampanchayat could have passed a resolution, Resolution No. 7, directing the petitioner to stop the further work relating to erection of mobile tower, on the ground that some of the villagers have taken objection for erection of the mobile tower, because they believe that the radiation emitted by the mobile tower is harmful to the health of the villagers and can possibly be carcinogenic.

4. The role of the Grampanchayat in the matter of erection of mobile tower in the vicinity of the Grampanchayat, as rightly submitted by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, is confined to only issuing of No Objection Certificate in terms of the Government Resolution dated 11th December 2015 and, therefore, we are of the view that if any NOC has been issued by the Grampanchayat, as required under the G.R. dated 11th December 2015, the Grampanchayat loses it’s control over the subject of erection of mobile tower.

5. In the present case, the Grampanchayat, i.e. respondent no. 1, has already issued no objection vide it’s certificate dated 30th June 2022 in favour of the petitioner in the matter of erection of mobile tower in the vicinity of the Grampanchayat and, therefore, we are of the opinion that Grampanchayat could not have passed another resolution, Resolution No. 7, which is impugned herein, directing the petitioner to stop further work of erection of the mobile tower. There is no provision whatsoever made in the G.R. dated 11th December 2015 conferring any such power upon any Grampanchayat and, therefore, the impugned resolution passed by the Grampanchayat is devoid of any authority in law and as such is illegal.

6. The matter can also be examined from another angle, which would require this court to examine the correctness or otherwise of the ground of the complaint made by some of the villagers, which has made the Grampanchayat to pass the impugned resolution. Their ground relates to their apprehension about the radiation emitted by the mobile tower being harmful to their health and may have the effect of causing cancer to the villagers. However, such an apprehension of the villagers, in another case, which is the case of Biju K. Balan and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2019 SCC Online Bom. 97, has been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this court, (B.R. Gavai and N.J. Jamadar, JJ.) in it’s judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 2152 of 2014, along with connected matters, on 4th and 23rd January 2019. It held that there is no scientific material or data warranting prohibition on installation of mobile tower and that jurisdiction under Arti