M/S. Reliance Infocom Ltd vs The Ombudsman For Local Self on 7 March, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 23481 of 2006(U)


1. M/S. RELIANCE INFOCOM LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

4. V.DAMODARAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.G.ARUN

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.J.MATHEW

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :07/03/2007

 O R D E R


                             PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.

                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                           W.P.(C)No. 23481 of 2006

                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                              Dated: 7th March, 2007


                                     JUDGMENT

I.A.No.3553 of 2007 will stand allowed. Exts.P8 and P9 will be

placed on record.

2. Ext.P8 is copy of the statement filed by the Atomic Energy

Regulatory Board before the Bombay High Court. This statement is to

the effect that the Radio Frequency Waves used for mobile phones

are not covered under the definition of ‘radiation’ as given in the

Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and that the Regulatory Board is not the

appropriate authority to assess or to indicate the harmful effects or

otherwise of the use of the radio frequency waves used for mobile

phones. Ext.P9 is copy of the report of the World Health Organisation.

Ext.P9 contains a finding that there is no convincing evidence

regarding adverse health from radio frequency signals emanated by

base stations and wireless networks.

3. Heard Mr.V.G.Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.P.J.Mathew, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Panchayat.

4. My attention was drawn by Mr.Arun to Exts.P9, P8, P5 and

also to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Reliance

(I.L.R. 2006(4) Kerala 357). Counsel also drew my attention to

W.P.C.No.23481/06 – 2 –

Section 271 F(c) of the Panchayat Raj Act and submits that the

complaint upon which Ext.P4 order has now been passed by the

learned Ombudsman was not maintainable before the Ombudsman at

all and was beyound the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

5. I find force in the submission of Mr.Arun. Accordingly, the

Writ Petition will stand allowed. Ext.P4 is quashed and the 2nd

respondent-Panchayat is directed to take an early decision on the

application submitted by the petitioner for permission to install the

mobile tower uninfluenced by anything stated in Exts.P3 and P4 and

taking into account the observations made hereinabove.

srd                                                    PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE