LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

telecommunication

(Querist) 25 April 2009 This query is : Resolved 
towers implanted in the residential areas by the the telecom companies causing harm to the people through radiations.any case or citation or any precendent with effect to this for my case. plz give me the answer.
sanjeev murthy desai (Expert) 25 April 2009
Dear Pathan Shiyaz Khan,

I think this case law is right answer for you.

M/S.Tvs Interconnect Systems Ltd vs The Chaliyar Grama Panchayat on 28 February, 2008
Kerala High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 5951 of 2008(H)


1. M/S.TVS INTERCONNECT SYSTEMS LTD
... Petitioner

Vs



1. THE CHALIYAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT ,
... Respondent

2. THE CHALIYAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

4. THE SECRETARY,POURA SAMITHY

For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW

For Respondent :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :28/02/2008

O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.

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

W.P.(c).No.5951 OF 2008

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

Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008


JUDGMENT


The grievance voiced in this writ petition filed by M/s TVS


Interconnect Systems Ltd, a company which provides infrastructure for


mobile telephone services, is that while they were constructing a


telecommunication tower on the strength of Ext.P1 building permit,


they have been issued with Ext.P2 stop memo. Because of Ext.P2 stop


memo, the construction had to be stopped half way. The petitioner


therefore prays that Ext.P2 be quashed.


2. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the


Panchayat as well as by the 4th respondent, who is the Secretary of the


Poura Samithy on the basis of whose complaint only, Panchayat issued


Ext.P2. Going by the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat, it is in


the wake of the public uphieval that the Panchayat became constrained


to issued Ext.P2. The party respondent has filed counter affidavit and


in paragraph 8, the following prominent contentions are raised:


" It is respectfully submitted that the site of


WPC.No.5951/08 2



the proposed Tower is in the middle of the


Akampadam town, which is a thickly populated


residential area. There are residential buildings,


educational institutions, places of worship and


commercial establishments in the close proximity of


the proposed site. The permission is granted


without having any concern of the anticipated


inconveniences or injuries of the nearby residents


and the public in general. The residents of the area


are in great anguish on account of the proposed


installation of the telecommunication tower. The


residents including this respondent reasonably


apprehends that the continuous contiguity with the


telecommunication tower will be causing health


hazards to them besides creating inconveniences


and hardships. The anguish and anxiety were duly


brought to the notice of the Panchayath authorities.


In that contingency, the Exhibit P2 notice was


issued and the first respondent is fully justified in


doing so. There is no illegality or irregularity in


Exhibit P2 notice. The first respondent is having


ample authority to enquire into the
M. PIRAVI PERUMAL (Expert) 26 April 2009
Thank you Sanjeev Sir.
navendu kumar (Expert) 26 April 2009
Dear all, if possible, pl send full judgment in the matter of Reliance Infocomm v. Chemancherry Grama Panchayat ( 2006(4) KLT
695.
pathan shiyaz khan (Querist) 07 May 2009
Thank you so much sir,


You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .


Click here to login now