The main legal point established in the judgment is that the installation of mobile towers should be assessed based on scientific evidence and guidelines related to EMF radiation to determine health risks to the public.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr.M.R.Molavi learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Meet Thakkar learned AGP for respondent no.1 and Mr.Satyam Chhaya learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3. Though served, nobody appears for respondent no.4.

2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner read as under:

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS, may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing quashing and setting aside the impugned letter dated: 16/04/2021 issued (ANNEXURE ‘A’) issued by the respondent no. 3 herein and thereby be pleased to direct the respondent No.4 to stop the work of installation of 4G mobile tower near Keshav Apartment situated at Chandkheda, T.P -44, Ahmedabad in the interest of the justice.

(B) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS, may be pleased to direct the respondent No.4 to stop the work of installation of 4G mobile tower near Keshav Apartment situated at Chandkheda, Ahmedabad which is started in pursuance to the impugned letter dated 16/04/2021 issued (ANNEXURE ‘A’) in the interest of justice.”

3. Essentially the grievance of the petitioner - Keshav Apartment is that the respondent no.3 has installed a 4G Mobile Telecom Tower without considering the health risk of the families residing in the nearby vicinity. It is the case of the petitioner that 4000 people are residing in 1000 flats in Chandkheda area and installation of mobile tower near the wall of the petitioner apartment could cause brain cancer, heart disease and various such other ailments.

4. Mr.Chhaya would rely on decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Muktipark Co Operative Society - Part – IV Versus Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & other passed in Special Civil Application No.5548 of 2014, wherein, this Court extensively after considering the issue and analyzing the aspects of installation of mobile towers held that they are unlikely to pose a risk of health. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as under:

“Analysis:

6. We have heard Ms. Niyati K. Juthani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Mihir Thakore, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Amrita M. Thakore, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, Mr. Deep D. Vyas, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Mr. Vandan Baxi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State Government and Mr. Shakeel A. Kureshi, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our consideration in this petition is, whether the petitioners are entitled to any of the reliefs as prayed for in the petition.

8. Ordinarily, the court would allow litigation in public interest if it is found :

i. That the impugned action is violative of any of the rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India or any other legal right and relief is sought for its enforcement;

ii. That the action complained of is palpably illegal or mala fide and affects the group of persons who are not in a position to protect their own interest on account of poverty, incapacity or ignorance;

iii. That the person or a group of persons were approaching the Court in public interest for redressal of public injury arising from the breach of public duty or from violation of some provision of the Constitutional law;

iv. That such person or group of persons is not a busy body or a meddlesome inter-loper and have not approached with mala fide intention of vindicating their personal vengeance or grievance;

v. That the process of public interest litigation was not being abused by politicians or other busy bodies for political or unrelated objective. Every default on the part of the State or Public