2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 26738
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHAJI P.CHALY, J
STEPHEN T D – Appellant
Versus
ATC TELECOME TOWR CORPORATION PVT LTD Advocate -SMT ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 26878/2016
Installation of mobile towers, once legally established, does not require new permits for modification unless explicitly stated in regulations.
Headnote:
Telecommunication - Writ Petition - Article 226 - Health Concerns and Regulatory Compliance - Permit Requirements
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks to prevent the installation of additional antennas on a mobile tower located on private property, citing health concerns due to radiation and claiming local authorities failed to act on a petition against this installation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no substantial evidence to support health hazard claims and ruled that the operation of the mobile tower was lawful, having been established prior to the petitioner's concerns with proper permits.
Issues: The primary issues are whether the installation of additional antennas poses a health risk and if the 7th respondent complied with necessary legal permits and regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the existing tower installation was legitimate and prior laws did not necessitate additional permits for modifications, hence the petitioner's request lacked a legal basis.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction, to respondents 1 to 6 not to permit the 7th and 8th respondents to install additional antenas of other mobile companies in the tower situated in the property having an extent of 6 cents in Sy.No.88/14 of Malayattoor Village, Ernakulam District owned by the 8th respondent and for other related reliefs.
2. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows; petitioner is a resident in Malayattoor along with his family. During the year 2007, ESSAR Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. had entered into a licence agreement with the 8th respondent for errection of a mobile tower in the property of the 8th respondent having an extent of 6 cents situated in Sy.No.88/14 of Malayattoor Village. Based on the agreement, a mobile tower as well as antena of a mobile company was installed. ESSAR Telecom Infrastructures is now changed to ATC Telecom Tower Corporation Private Limited, which is the 7th respondent in the writ petition.
Seventh respondent company takes the land for lease for erecting mobile tower of mobile companies by charging rent from them. Accordingly, in the present case, 7th respondent installed the mobile tower of a company called Idea Cellular Ltd., in the property of the 8th respondent. It is submitted, the present mobile tower is a threat to the people in the locality including the petitioner and the same is erected very close to the Panchayat road. The area in question is thickly populated and very close to the said tower. Apart from the residential houses, hospital, CBSE School, Church etc. etc. are situated.
3. It is also contended that, the radiation emitting from the tower is very hazardous to the people in the locality which will cause diseases like cancer, leukemia, headache, loss of memory etc. etc, evident from Ext.P1 study report. It is stated that, whenever a person walking very close to the tower, he will be suffering health consequences because of the high power radiation emitting from the antena installed in the tower and the people of the locality are experiencing the same. It is also contended that no precautionary measures have been taken to prevent this kind of pollution and radiation. It is also contended that, the right to life includes right for a decent life, which was held by a Division Bench of this Court in 2008(2) KLT 141 (incorrect citation).
4. It is also contended that the 7th respondent is again taking illegal steps to install the mobile tower of other company such as Reliance in the very same property and if such things happens, it will cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner as well as other peoples residing in the area. In that view of the matter a mass petition was submitted, evident from Ext.P2. However, the District Collector has not taken any action in the said mass petition. It is in this background seeking appropriate direction this writ petition is filed.
5. Seventh respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands made by the petitioner in the writ petition. According to the 7th respondent, the tower was installed in the land in question belonging to the 8th respondent as early as in 2007 on the basis of the building permit duly issued by the competent authority. It was on the basis of an agreement executed by and between the parent company of the 7th respondent and the 8th respondent that the telecommunication tower in 6 cents of property was put up. Seventh respondent is entitled to continue operation for a period of 15 years as per the agreement on the basis of the monthly fee payable by the 7th respondent to the 8th respondent, owner of the property. The agreement between the parties enables the 7th respondent to put up antena, equipments etc. of various mobile service providers in the tower without payment of any additional charges to the land owner. It is submitted, in compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement with periodical