Back
2013 Supreme(UK) 548
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Barin Ghosh and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Servesh Kumar Gupta
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 117 of 2013
RESIDENTS OF MELVILLE COMPOUND – Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 29.11.2013
For the Petitioner:Mr. Alok Dalakoti, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Standing Counsel (Central Govt.)
For the Respdt. Nos. 4, 6 & 7 : Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standng Counsel
For the Respondent No. 5:Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 8:Ms. Joyce Irwin, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 9:Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate
Headnote:Writ Petition — Contention that the radiation emanating from mobile towers at the place was much higher than other places — But through a national policy, mobiles have been permitted — And in order to make mobiles workable, mobile towers were essential — Thus, any order passed in this writ petition, would tantamount to a direction for closure of mobile connectivity contrary to the national policy. (Para 2)
fjV ;kfpdk & rdZ fd eksckby VkWoj ls fudys fofdj.k dfFkr LFkku ij vfèkd Fkk ctk; nwljs LFkkuksa ds & ijUrq jk”Vªh; ikWfylh ds vuqlkj eksckby ds fy, vkKk Fkh & vkSj eksckby ds Bhd izdkj ls dk;Z djus ds fy, eksckby VkWoj vko’;d & bl izdkj fjV ;kfpdk esa vkns’k eksckby dh laca/ku esa #dkoV dk funsZ’k gksxk] tks fd jk”Vªh; ikWfylh ds fo#)A ¼izLrj 2½
BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral)
We are not inclined to entertain this writ petition although no counter affidavit thereto has been filed by any of the respondents despite opportunities given to them to file counter affidavits.
2. It is being contended in the writ petition that the radiation emanating from mobile towers at the place, where they are installed, is much higher than other places. That may be so, but, despite that, through a national policy, mobiles have been permitted. In order to make mobiles workable, mobile towers are essential. It has been contended that, in the instant case, a particular mobile tower has been installed at a residential place. Mobile connectivity in the residential place is of utmost importance. If mobile towers are removed from residential areas, people residing in the area will have no mobile connectivity. In the event, any order is passed on this writ petition, the same would tantamount to a direction for closure of mobile connectivity contrary to the national policy and we do not think that the same will be appropriate on our part to do.
3. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition.
