IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 21528 of 2006(K)
1. TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, OLAVANA GRAMA
3. SHRI.ABDUL JALEEL,
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner : .
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :01/02/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO. 21528 of 2006
----------------------------------
Dated this 1st day of February , 2007
JUDGMENT
Ext.P5 order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self
Government Institutions, is under challenge. Ext.P5 is a general
order wherein the Ombudsman ordered that providers of teli
communication service shall produce no objection certificate
from the Automic Energy Commission so as to enable the
Panchayat to issue licence to them for installation of mobile
tower and for energizing the same.
2.Heard Sri.A.M.Shaffique the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, Sri.P.V.Kunhikrishnan, the learned Standing Counsel
for the Panchayat and Sri.Mathew G.Vadakkal, the learned
Government Pleader for the 4th respondent. Even though the 3rd
respondent had filed complaint regarding the installation and
commission of the mobile tower by the petitioner he has not
entered appearance before this court for resisting this writ
petition. My attention was drawn by Sri.A.M.Shaffique to the
judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Reliance
WPC No.21528/2006 2
Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat ( 2006 (4)
KLT 695). Paragraphs 5 and 8 were highlighted before me by
the learned counsel. I notice that the issue is decided by the
Division Bench in favour of the petitioner.
3. Having regard to the principles laid down in Reliance
case ( supra), Ext.P5 cannot be sustained at all. Ext.P5 therefore
will stand quashed. However, it is made clear that all the
observations and direction in paragraph 8 of the Reliance Case
which I quote as follows;
“We notice that the Panchayat has as on
today no scientific data or relevant materials to
cancel the licence already granted on the ground
that the installation of the Tower would cause any
health hazards. Licence granted has been
cancelled by the Panchayat based on an
apprehension that the radiation may cause health
hazards to the people of the locality. Further
Ext.P5 also says that installation of generator
would cause sound pollution. Petitioner has not
installed any generator as on today and if the
installation of generator would cause any sound
pollution, evidently Pollution Control Board can
give appropriate direction and the petitioner will
have to obtain necessary consent from the
Pollution Control Board for installation of
generators, so that it would not cause any sound
pollution. So also, if the installation of Tower and
the emission of elctromagnetic waves causes any
WPC No.21528/2006 3
air pollution, affecting human health the Pollution
Control Board can take appropriate measures
under Air ( Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act 1991″.
shall be binding on the writ petitioner also.
The writ petition stands allowed subject to the above
quoted directions and observations.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Judge
dpk