285 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 08.04.2025 VIJAY KUMAR MANGLA .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Pankaj Mulwani, DAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 to 3.

Mr. Sumeet Jain, Advocate for respondent no.5.

Ms. Srishti Shukla, Advocate with Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent no.6.

KULDEEP TIWARI , J.(Oral)

1. Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a prayer is made for quashing the permission granted vide Memo No.2024/1145, dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure P-1), whereby, respondent no.1, has granted permission to respondent no.5, to install a New Mobile Tower in the residential area.

2. The grievance which encapsulated in the instant petition is the indolent and lackadaisical approach of respondent no.3, for not deciding the representation dated 05.02.2025 (Annexure P-7), as preferred by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mobile tower is permitted to be installed, without there being any requisite permissions granted for the same.

4. He further submits that there is a complete violation of the advisory guidelines, as issued by the State Government, for getting clearance for installing the mobile towers.

5. While referring to the medical condition of the present petitioner, who is suffering from a chronic disease, he submits that the exposure of the petitioner to such high levels radio frequencies of the mobile tower, would deteriorate his health.

6. Upon notice, today Mr. Sumeet Jain, Advocate, has caused appearance on behalf of respondent no.5, whereas, Ms. Srishti Shukla, Advocate, and Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocatem as caused appearance on behalf of respondent no.6.

7. They have placed on record a copy of notification dated 08.10.2015, which is taken on record as Mark 'A', and informs this Court that as per the said notification, the Government of Haryana, in order to effectively address public grievance relating to installation of mobile tower, and other issues, has constituted a State Level Telecom Committee (SLTC), and District Level Telecom Committee (DLTC), and their role and responsibility has been specifically prescribed therein. The petitioner has already made a representation (Annexure P-7), to the Chairman of the District Level Telecom Committee headed by Deputy Commissioner, Palwal, therefore, let the competent authority to decide the issue in dispute.

8. This Court has examined the rival submissions as made by learned counsel for the parties concerned, and has perused the entire case file.

9. It is apparent from the notification dated 08.10.2015, that the District Level Telecom Committee can address the issue, as raised by the petitioner through the instant petition. The composition, role and responsibility of the District Level Committee as prescribed in the said notification is extracted hereinafter:-

“4. The Constitution of District Level Telecom Committee

5. The Role and Responsibilities of DLTC Committees are as under:

(i)