Health risks from mobile towers must be scientifically proven; valid permits remain enforceable under applicable building rules.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by a few residents within the limits of Chittur - Thathamangalam Municipality seeking to quash Ext.P1 building permit issued by the Secretary of the Municipality dated 16.04.2015 to M/s. Reliance InfoComm Ltd. Palarivattom, Ernakulam for installation of a tower in Survey No. 9/4 of Thathamangalam Village. The petitioners have also sought for the cancellation of approval granted by the District Telecom Committee, represented by its Chairman – the third respondent.

2. The paramount contention advanced by the petitioners in the writ petition is that the proposed mobile tower is in a thickly populated area. According to the petitioners, the history of cell phones indicates that chronic exposure to cellular radiation can have adverse effects on human being. That apart, it is contended that none of the statutory authorities have applied their mind in granting permit/sanction to the fifth respondent to install the mobile tower. According to the petitioners, even though Ext.P3 representation was submitted by the petitioners before the District Collector, Palakkad – the second respondent, no action was initiated. That apart, it is submitted that Ext.P4 representation was also submitted by the third petitioner before the Municipality, however, no action was initiated and therefore, according to the petitioners since the statutory authorities have not taken any action, interference is required from this Court so as to dissuade the illegal action of the respondents. The petitioners have also contended that as per a town planning scheme for the Chittur –Thathamangalam Municipality, mobile towers cannot be installed in the residential area in question; and therefore, by virtue of Rule 3A of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules (for short the ‘Rules, 1999’) which has precedence over the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, the mobile tower in question cannot be constructed in a residential area. When the writ petition was admitted to the files of this Court, an interim order was passed by this Court on 22.01.2016 permitting the installation of mobile tower, but the energization of the same was interdicted without taking orders from the Court, which order is still in force.

3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the fifth respondent refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioners. In the counter affidavit, the locus standi of the petitioners to file the writ Petition is disputed apart from disputing the factual circumstances pointed out by the petitioners. It is also submitted that even though petitioners have raised a contention with respect to applicability of a town planning scheme, the petitioners have not made any specific pleading with respect to the same and have also not relied upon any town planning scheme or have not produced copy of any scheme or have even furnished the details of the scheme in the writ petition so as to understand the situation and respond in accordance with law. With respect to the health hazard pointed out by the petitioner, it is submitted that the issue was considered by a Full Bench of this court in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. C.I. of Police, Angamaly [2010 (2) KLT 762 (FB)] and later by a Division Bench of this court inEssar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [ 2011 (2) KLT 516 ] and held that there is no scientific evidence to substantiate that there are health issues consequent to the erection of a mobile tower and therefore, the construction of mobile towers cannot be obstructed on the grounds of health issues. That part, it is submitted that the Government of India has taken adequate and adept steps in order to control the radiation emanated from the mobile tower installations. Other contentions are also raised and submit that petitioners have not made out any ground so as to interfere with the permit granted to the fifth respondent as per Ext.P1. It is also to be noted that the validity of Ext.P