The main legal point established is the need to balance public health concerns with the necessity of mobile services, and the importance of compliance with the Advisory and Additional Guidelines for mobile tower installation.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The petitioner is a villager in Jahanabad, Khejuri Anchal No.6, Block No.1, District: Purba Medinipur. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite the petitioner and other co-villagers having given repeated representations to the authorities concerned, the respondent no.1-company, that is, the Reliance JIO Infocomm Limited, has started construction of a mobile tower in close proximity (about 5 metres laterally) to the petitioner's house, allegedly in a densely populated area.

2. Such representations were made to the Panchayat Authorities and to the Block Development Officer and an e-mail was even sent to the respondent no.10 itself.

3. The petitioner alleges that the installation of such tower shall emit harmful radiation, which will pose a serious health hazard to the residents of the neighbourhood.

4. It is further submitted that there are not only able-bodied adults but also aged and very young people and the sick and infirm, all of whom would suffer from various diseases, both immediate and potential, due to such sustained exposure to the emissions from the mobile tower.

5. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no. 10 has flouted the minimum distance and other norms provided in the relevant Guidelines issued by the Department of Telecommunications in that regard.

6. Such Advisory Guidelines (effective from August 1, 2013) are annexed at page-38 of the vacating application.

7. Certain Additional Guidelines to TERM Cells for auditing BTS for EMF Radiation, also effective from the said date, are annexed at page-41 of the vacating application.

8. By placing reliance on clause 4A, III and VIII, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that a copy of SACFA clearance as well as No Objection Certificate (NOC) from building owner/entities having rooftop rights or rooftop tenants in case of roof based tower / land owner in case of ground based tower, as the case may be, are necessary, but not obtained by the respondent no.10.

9. Clause 2 of the Additional Guidelines also provides the minimum distance of the building/structure near the antenna(e) from such antenna(e), depending on the number of antennae pointed in the same direction. It is submitted that the said norms are also being violated blatantly by the respondent no.10.

10. As previously directed, C.A.N. 10762 of 2019, which is a vacating application, is treated to be an affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no.10 to the writ petition.

11. A reply thereto is also on record.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent no.10, who is the main contesting respondent, argues that all the Advisory Guidelines have been followed by the said respondent.

13. All documents, as required under clause 4A of such Guidelines, have been duly deposited. It is submitted that sub-clause III of clause 4A contemplates not a copy of SACFA clearance only, but alternatively the copy of a SACFA application for the said location submitted to WPC wing of DoT with registration number as WPC acknowledgment, along with undertaking that in case of any objection/rejection, TSPs/IPs will take corrective actions/measures to remove the tower.

14. Sub-Clause IX, on the other hand, envisages a self-certificate by the Telecom Service Provider/Infrastructure Provider in respect of mobile towers. As such, there is no question of any violation of such Guidelines, since the respondent no.10 has allegedly complied with all such norms.

15. It is submitted further that the safe distance of the building-in-question from the antenna, as provided in clause 2 of the Additional Guidelines, can only be measured after completion of the tower and at the time of installation of such antenna. It is argued on behalf of the respondent no.10 that clause 2 makes it clear that in case of both ground based towers and rooftop towers, there shall be no building right in front of the antenna(e) of equivalent height, taking into account the tilt of the lowest antenna