IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 7794 of 2007(C)
1. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SC, BSNL
For Respondent :GOVT.PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :22/03/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 7794 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 22nd March, 2007
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr.K.Ramakumar, Standing Counsel for the B.S.N.L., the
writ petitioner and Mr.P.K.Soyuz, Standing Counsel for the 1st
respondent-Municipality.
2. The petitioner-B.S.N.L seeks quashment of the notice dated
2.1.2007 and 24.1.2007 issued by the 1st respondent-Municipality
directing the petitioner to produce a certificate from the Atomic
Energy Commission to the effect that radiations from the mobile
tower to be installed by the petitioner will not to be injurious to
human lives. Under Ext.P3 the Municipality has directed the petitioner
to submit an affidavit before the Municipality that if the judgment of
this court in the Writ Petition challenging the order of the
Ombudsman on the basis of which only the Municipality insisted that
the petitioner shall produce a certificate from the Atomic Energy
Commission goes against the stand of the petitioner, the petitioner
will remove the tower within 30 days. I had occasion to decide Writ
Petitions filed by other mobile telephone companies impugning the
order of the Ombudsman and consequential orders passed by the
local authorities on the basis of the Ombudsman’s order. I had in fact
relied on the Division Bench judgment of this court in Reliance
W.P.C.No.7794/07 – 2 –
Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat (2006(4) KLT
695) wherein the Division Bench after noticing the affidavit which was
filed by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board before the Bombay High
Court as well as a report submitted by the World Health Organisation
in that court found that the emission/radiation from the mobile
towers will be relatively less as against the radiation/emission from
the radio towers. I had in fact occasion to consider copies of that
affidavit and the report of the W.H.O. in other cases decided by me.
Under these circumstances, following the view which I have taken in
the earlier cases and the views expressed by the Division Bench in
the decision referred to above, this Writ Petition is only to be allowed.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition will stand allowed. Exts.P2 and P3 are
quashed and the 1st respondent-Municipality is directed to consider
the application for licence submitted by the petitioner without
insisting on production of any No Objection Certificate or permission
from the Atomic Energy Commission. In other words, if the petitioner
is having all statutory consents and No Objection Certificates, the 1st
respondent will not hesitate to issue the licence applied for.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
W.P.C.No.7794/07 - 3 -