telecommunication
pathan shiyaz khan
(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
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.
