JUDGMENT

The writ petition has been filed by a Residents' Association, challenging the order of the 2nd and 3rd respondents granting licence to the 1st respondent to erect and operate a telecommunication tower. Initially, the 1st respondent had applied for a permit in 2014, which was not considered by the Municipality within the statutory period. The 1st respondent started the construction of the tower based on the provision regarding deemed licence. The 1st respondent approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) and the Tribunal directed the Municipality to issue the licence. The petitioners challenged the order of the Tribunal before this Court in W.P. (C)No.29002 of 2014 which was allowed by this Court by judgment Ext.P1 dated 03.07.2015. This Court held that since the application submitted by the 1st respondent was not in order, the deeming provision cannot be applied. This Court however observed that the 1st respondent is not prevented from approaching the appropriate authority concerned with a fresh application for licence. Since the construction of the tower was already over, the 1st respondent preferred a fresh application requesting for regularisation of the construction. The application was rejected by the Municipality by order dated 17.03.2016 against which the 1st respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay and the order of the Tribunal was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C)No.17072 of 2016. The Municipality had in the meanwhile directed the owner of the building on which the tower had been constructed, to demolish the building as the same was unauthorized. The applications were filed for regularisation of the construction as well and for permission to operate the tower. W.P.(C)No.17072 of 2016 was withdrawn since applications for regularisation of the constructions were pending. The Municipality thereafter considered the application for regularisation and passed Ext.P2 order regularising the construction. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P2 order.

2. The 1st respondent has filed a counter-affidavit specifically answering the issues regarding the apprehended effect of radiation that may be caused by a mobile tower. Thereafter I.A.No. 1 of 2021 has been filed producing Exts.R1(a) to R1(e) and I.A.No.1 of 2022 has been filed producing Exts.R1(f) to R1(h).

3. Heard Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Sri.S.Sujin on behalf of the petitioners, Sri.E.K..Nandakumar, learned Senior Advocate instructed by Sri.Kurian Thomas on behalf of the 1st respondent and Sri.P.P.Thajudeen, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 & 3.

4. The challenge is against Ext.P2 order whereby the respondents 2 and 3 have regularised the construction of the building as well as the mobile tower over the building. It is seen from Ext.P2 that the decision has been taken after obtaining a report from the Municipal Engineer. The report confirms that the constructions comply with Rule 131 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. The petitioner has not challenged the report of the Municipal Engineer. There is also no specific violation of the Building Rules pointed out in the writ petition. All that is stated is an earlier writ petition filed against the order of the Tribunal as W.P.(C). No.17072 of 2016 which was withdrawn by the first respondent and hence the earlier order of the Tribunal has become final. Admittedly, the Tribunal had rejected the appeal on the ground of delay and the said order does not preclude reconsideration of the application for regularisation. The main challenge of the petitioner, which is raised even though in a veiled manner, is against the very installation of the mobile tower on the ground that it would cause serious health hazards. The above issue has already been set at rest by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Reli