2013 (10) TMI 127 - HC - Indian Laws

Erection of telecommunication tower - Obstruction in construction - Held that - None of the respondents have filed any counter affidavit in this writ petition. The matter was heard. Whether the commissioning of a telecommunication tower would affect the health of the people of the area is an issue which is still being debated among the scientist communities all over the world. This Court has, in two decisions, held that there is no evidence that the same will affect the health of the people. Whether it will affect the health of the people or not, it is an undisputed fact that we are bound to live for the rest of our lives with mobile phones in our pockets. The statute prescribes certain licenses and permits for erecting telecommunication towers. All what we can ensure is that such requirements are complied with in the erection and operation of the tower. In the above circumstances, if the petitioner has obtained necessary permits and licenses, nobody can prevent them from erecting and commissioning telecommunication towers. Therefore, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to see that the petitioner is not prevented from commissioning the telecommunication tower already erected, if they have all the permits and licences to operate the telecommunication tower - Decided in favour of appellant.

Issues:
1. Obstruction in erecting a telecommunication tower by respondents 3 and 4.
2. Seeking writ of mandamus for support and protection during construction and operation of the tower.
3. Completion of tower construction pending commissioning orders.
4. Lack of counter affidavits from respondents.
5. Debate on health impact of telecommunication towers.
6. Compliance with permits and licenses for tower erection and operation.
7. Disposal of the writ petition with a direction to prevent obstruction in tower commissioning.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the obstruction faced by the petitioner, a telecommunication infrastructure provider, in erecting a telecommunication tower by respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to provide support and protection for the construction and operation of the tower in accordance with the building permit and licenses issued.

2. The petitioner, through the filed writ petition, highlighted the need for adequate protection during the construction and operation of the telecommunication tower in a specific location. Despite completing the tower construction as per an interim order, the petitioner awaited further orders from the Court to commission the tower, emphasizing the importance of continued support and protection.

3. Notably, the Court observed the absence of counter affidavits from any of the respondents, indicating a lack of opposition or contradictory evidence presented in response to the petitioner's claims. This factor likely influenced the Court's decision-making process and the subsequent judgment delivered.

4. A significant aspect addressed by the Court was the ongoing debate regarding the potential health impacts of telecommunication towers on local communities. While acknowledging the scientific discourse on this issue, the Court referenced previous decisions that found no conclusive evidence linking tower presence to adverse health effects, emphasizing the ubiquitous nature of mobile phones in modern society.

5. Furthermore, the Court underscored the importance of compliance with statutory requirements, including obtaining necessary permits and licenses for erecting and operating telecommunication towers. As long as the petitioner adhered to these regulatory provisions, the Court asserted that no entity should impede the commissioning of the tower.

6. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the petitioner faces no hindrance in commissioning the telecommunication tower already erected, provided all requisite permits and licenses are in place. This decision aimed to uphold the petitioner's rights and facilitate the smooth operation of the telecommunication infrastructure without unwarranted obstacles.

← Previous Next →