IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 17944 of 2007(J)
1. JANA JAGRUTHI VEDIKE (REG. NO.1077/03),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY,
3. IDEA MOBILE COMMUNICATION LTD.
4. BHARTHI AIRTEL LTD.,
5. FLUTCISON ESSAR CELLULAR LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SHRIHARI
For Respondent :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :12/02/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.17944 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 12th February, 2008
JUDGMENT
In this Writ Petition the petitioner who is the Secretary of the
Jana Jagruthi Vedike, an organisation with main function of protecting
the rights and interests of the general public seeks a writ of mandaus
to the 2nd respondent-Panchayat to produce the records connected to
granting permission to respondents 3 and 4 mobile telephone
companies for erecting mobile towers in thickly populated residential
areas. According to the petitioner, under the cover of building permits
issued by the 2nd respondent in respect of other areas, respondents 3
and 4 are now constructing towers in thickly populated areas. I do
not propose to settle the issue. A perusal of the grounds raised will
show that the main ground on which the petitioner is opposing the
installation of towers and its energisation is the possible health
hazards resulting from electro magnetic radiation emanating from
the energisation of towers. The construction of the towers, I am
informed is underway. I dispose of the Writ Petition directing
respondents 3 and 4 not to energise the towers before separate
orders in that regard are issued by the 2nd respondent. I also direct
the 2nd respondent to hear the petitioner and respondents 3, 4 and 5
W.P.C.No.17944/07 – 2 –
also before decision is taken regarding energisation of towers. It is
open to the petitioner to raise all available grounds during hearing
including the ground that the constructions are unauthorised in as
much as they have been made not at places covered by the permits
granted to respondents 3, 4 and 5.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE