Point of law: India's national policy has been clearly and unequivocally expressed by the legislature in the Atomic Energy Act. National and international policy of the country is to develop control and use of atomic energy for the welfare of the people and for other peaceful purposes. NPP has been set up at Kundankulam as part of the national policy which is discernible from the Preamble of the Act and the provisions contained therein.

JUDGMENT :

Ritu Raj Awasthi, Manish Mathur, JJ.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aakash Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite party no.7 and Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Ambrish Rai, learned Central Government Counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party nos. 5 and 6.

2. The writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to remove the installation and operation of Mobile Tower and 4G Base Transmitting Station (BTS) by the opposite party no.7 at the plot of the opposite party no.8.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to publish the result or conclusion of the study on the possible impact of EMF radiation exposure from mobile tower and hand set on life and related initiative conducted by opposite party no.1.

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to include the "Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation" as pollutant under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and insert a schedule therein detailing the safety norms/guidelines.

(iv) Any other appropriate writ order or direction this Hon'ble Court may deem just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed; and

(v) to allow this writ petition with costs."

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that opposite party no.7 has erected mobile tower and 4G Base Transmitting Station at the adjacent plot of the residence of the petitioner. It is located in the densely populated area and the emission of radiation from the tower has adverse effect on the health of the petitioner and his family members and the people living nearby.

4. It is also submitted that no uniformed policy is being followed for installation of the mobile towers and the advisory on use of mobile towers considering the impact on wildlife including birds and bees, has not been considered as well as the questions raised in this regard before the Parliament and the answers given by the Ministry of Telecommunication has also not been considered. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed the instant writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, however subsequently the writ petition has been treated in the Miscellaneous Bench jurisdiction as the petitioner has come forward showing that the petitioner himself is aggrieved with the action of the opposite parties in installation of 4G Base Transmitting Station and mobile tower on the plot adjacent to the house of the petitioner.

5. Mr. J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite party no.7, on the other hand, submits that the controversy raised in the writ petition has been considered and decided by a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Asha Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others; 2017 (1) UPLBEC 261, which has been consistently followed in subsequent judgments and orders of this Court. He has placed a compilation of the judgments passed in this regard by this Court. The compilation placed before the Court is taken on record.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner tried to submit that the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Asha Mishra (Supra) is distinguishable from the case of the petitioner on the ground that in that case under challenge was the installation of mobile towers and 4G Base Transmitting Towers being established in the entire State of U.P. whereas in the present case the petitioner has specifically pleaded that the opposite party no.7 has installed mobile tower and 4G Base Transmitting Station adjacent to the residence and area of the petitioner which is densely populated. It is also submitted that the Court has not