Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 726
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Prabhu Kumari Gadri - Appellants
Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1475 of 2019
Decided On : 04-07-2019
For the Appellant : Harish Jangid
For the Respondents: Anurup Singhi, Avinash Acharya, Abhishek Mehta and Hiten Sampat
The consent of the Gram Panchayat is not required for the installation of a mobile tower, as the relevant provision only requires seeking comments from the Gram Panchayat.
Headnote:
MOBILE TOWER INSTALLATION - CONSENT OF GRAM PANCHAYAT - RAJASTHAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT ORDER, 2017, CLAUSE 6(2) - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Semaliya, challenged the permission for installation of a mobile tower issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chittorgarh, alleging violation of the Rajasthan Urban Development and Housing Department Order, 2017.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the order granting permission for installation of the mobile tower was not non-speaking and that the Nodal Officer was not required to record reasons in the order. The Court also held that the consent of the Gram Panchayat was not required, as the relevant provision only required seeking comments from the Gram Panchayat.
Issues: 1. Whether the consent of the Gram Panchayat was required for the installation of the mobile tower? 2. Whether the order granting permission for the installation of the mobile tower was non-speaking?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Clause 6(2) of the Rajasthan Urban Development and Housing Department Order, 2017, and held that it only required seeking comments from the Gram Panchayat, not its consent. 2. The Court held that granting permission for installation of a mobile tower is an administrative or ministerial act and the Nodal Officer is not required to record reasons in the order.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no substance in the petitioner's arguments and that the provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Development and Housing Department Order, 2017, or any other law had not been flouted.
ORDER :
Dinesh Mehta, J.
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged permission for installation of mobile tower, issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chittorgarh on 07.01.2019.
2. Narrated in a nutshell, the facts appertain to the present writ petition are that the petitioner-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Semaliya has filed the present writ petition claiming to be espousing the cause of her Gram Panchayat. The petitioner's essential grievance is that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chittorgarh, the competent authority, has issued permission/NOC dated 07.01.2019 in violation of the order dated 06.02.2017, issued by the Department of Urban Development and Housing, Government of Rajasthan.
3. Mr. Harish Jangid, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that prior to issuance of the permission, the competent authority has not obtained consent of the concerned Gram Panchayat. He further argued that the competent authority, the respondent No. 2 has neither recorded any reason nor has discussed any of the objections raised by the Gram Panchayat and other persons including the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chittorgarh. His last contention has been that the consent/NOC issued by the respondent No. 2 is not in the prescribed proforma being Form No. 6 enclosed with the order dated 06.02.2017.
4. Highlighting the grievance of the petitioner, learned counsel contended that as a result establishment of mobile tower, health of the resident of the village will be adversely effected, for which they have raised objections and represented before the State authorities. Their objections are duly reflected in the letter dated 07.08.2018, written by respondent No. 2 the Sub-Divisional Officer to the Tehsildar Chittorgarh.
5. Mr. Anurup Singhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 submitted that the petitioner being the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Semaliya has filed the present writ petition purportedly espousing the cause of her Gram Panchayat, as such should have filed a PIL inasmuch as none of her individual fundamental rights are infringed. To emphasise that the petition has been filed in representative capacity, he invited attention towards para 7 of the writ petition.
6. Mr. Singhi pointed out that the only ground raised by the petitioner (Ground 'H') is that the installation of mobile tower and telegraph structure is hazardous to health of villagers but there is neither any evidence nor material to support such contention.
7. In a bid of satisfy the Court about the allegation of adverse impact on public health, he zealously stated that notwithstanding the fact that the respondent Company is sensitive towards public health and injury, there is no adverse effect, much less health hazards. That apart respondent Company is bound by various laws framed by the Central Government and the State Government, which have provided enough safeguards to regulate radiations.
8. He submitted that there are plethora of decisions of various High Courts and this Court, by which similar nature writ petitions have been rejected, inter alia, holding that the residents of a particular area cannot object to installation of mobile tower except when there is violation of statutory regulations or rules. Learned counsel asserted that prior to grant of NOC, requisite formalities have been observed and the respondent Company has also ensured that the tower is not installed at any prohibited place such as a school or hospital.
9. In this regard, he invited attention of this Court towards the Division Bench judgment dated 27.11.2012 in the matter of Justice I.S. Israni (Retd.) & 3 Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.; 2013(2) WLC (Raj.) 602 and submitted that after a detailed deliberation on all aspects, this Court has laid down various guidelines and none of them have been violated.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
11. Without dilating upon the question of locus of the petitioner to file t
