20 28.03. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

2025 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Ct. No. 28 Ab WPA 26874 of 2024 Debasish Mukherjee alias Debasish Kumar Mukherjee Vs.

The State of West Bengal and others.

---------------

Mr. Partha Chakraborty, Mr. Arghya Mullick, Mr. Muhammad Obaid.

… for the writ petitioner.

Ms. Parna Roy Chowdhury, Mr, Debottam Das.

… for the State.

Mr. Asok Bhaumik.

… for the respondent nos. 3 and 10.

Mr. Mir Anuruzzaman.

… for the respondent nos. 6 and 7.

Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta.

… for the respondent no. 9.

Mr. Arindam Chandra, Mr. Atish Ghosh, Ms. Antara Dey.

… for the respondent no. 11.

Mr. Sanjay Chattopadhyay.

… for the respondent no. 12 and 13.

The writ petitioner is aggrieved by erection/installation of mobile tower on a top of the building, namely, Srishti Apartment situated at Holding No. 63, E.M. Bypass, P.O. Garia, P.S. Sonarpur (now Narendrapur), Kolkata – 700084, South 24-Parganas by the respondent no. 11.

The writ petitioner complains that such tower is hazardous inasmuch as it emits electromagnetic waves, which have the potential to cause substantial harm to the individuals around the same. The writ petitioner claims to be inhabitant of the building (Srishti Apartment) which houses the tower.

The writ petitioner submits that a representation made by him before the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India on May 15, 2024 has remained unheeded. He prays for order on the said authority to take steps in terms of the said representation.

Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 11 disputes the allegation of the writ petitioner in so far as the allegation regarding the hazards posed by the tower is concerned.

Learned Advocate on behalf of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, submits that the said authority has nothing to do in the matter and in support of such contention, he places reliance of an order dated March 22, 2023 passed by this Court in WPA 2268 of 2022 (Tapas Barui & ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). He places specific reliance on the observations made in the said order at page 7 thereof, which are extracted herein below:

“Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, this court finds from the report of the District Panchayat & Rural Development Officer, Hooghly, that the District Level Committee is the appropriate authority to decide the issue with regard to the installation and operationalization of the concerned mobile tower. The authorities are already considering the issue and have called for separate reports. Thus, the prayer of the petitioners with regard to prevention of installation and construction of the mobile tower shall be decided by the District Level Committee in terms of the West Bengal Telecom Infrastructure Guidelines 2020. All the points which have been mentioned by the District Panchayat & Rural Development Officer shall be considered. The local bodies, i.e. the gram panchayat and the zilla parishad are also a part of the committee, and all the issues with regard to the mobile tower and its installation over an unauthorized building shall be considered and decided by the committee, in accordance with law.”

It appears from the perusal of the order dated March 22, 2023 that this Court had an occasion to deal with a similar situation in the case that was presented before the Court in WPA 2268 of 2022. This Court was pleased to observe that the grievances of such nature are to be addressed by the District Level Committee, who is the appropriate authority to decide the issue regarding installation and operationalization of a mobile tower.

Learned Advocate on behalf of the State files a report and adopts the submissions made on behalf of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. He submits that in terms of the order dated March 22, 2023 passed by this Court, the District Level Committee is the appropriate authority to deal with the grievances concerning a mobile tower. The report filed in Court today is taken on record.

Having heard the le