VAVACHAN A Vs. RAGINI RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are persons residing within the limits of Devikulangara Grama Panchayat. The first respondent is a person residing in the neighbourhood of the residences of the petitioners. The eighth respondent has obtained a building permit for erection of a telecommunication tower in the property of the first respondent. According to the petitioners, if the telecommunication tower proposed by the eighth respondent is permitted to be erected, the same would cause health hazards to the people residing near the tower including the petitioners. Ext.P1 is a complaint sent by the people in the locality to the second respondent requesting him to take appropriate action in this regard. It appears that a copy of Ext.P1 complaint was forwarded to the sixth respondent, and in response to a query by the sixth respondent, the second respondent has informed the sixth respondent that building permit was issued to the eighth respondent in accordance with the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules. Ext.P3 is the communication issued in this regard by the second respondent to the sixth respondent. It is stated by the petitioners that the people in the locality, thereupon, preferred Ext.P4 representation to the seventh respondent, the District Collector, and the seventh respondent, in turn, referred the said representation to the sixth respondent. It is stated by the petitioners that on the said reference, the sixth respondent has issued Ext.P5 communication to one among the signatories to Ext.P4 representation informing that since building permit has been issued in terms of the rules in force, they are free to approach the District Telecom Committee, if they are aggrieved by the decision of the panchayat. Aggrieved by the said stand taken by the sixth respondent, the petitioners preferred Ext.P6 representation to the fifth respondent, the Environmental Engineer attached to the concerned District Office of the Pollution Control Board and the fifth respondent forwarded the representation to the District Telecom Committee with a request to insist the eighth respondent to obtain permission of the Pollution Control Board for establishing and operating the telecommunication tower as also the generator to be installed for operating the telecommunication tower. The writ petition is filed thereafter challenging Ext.P3 communication issued by the second respondent. The petitioners also seek directions to the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 representation, directions to the second respondent to consider Ext.P1 representation and also directions to the seventh respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation. The petitioners also seek a declaration that the second respondent has no authority to grant building permit for erection of a mobile tower in a densely populated area.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board.

(3.) Placing reliance on Ext.P8 communication issued by the fifth respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that permission of the Pollution Control Board is required for erecting a telecommunication tower and the building permit obtained by the eighth respondent for erection of telecommunication tower without the permission of the Pollution Control Board is, therefore, unsustainable. It was also contended strenuously by the learned counsel that the telecommunication tower, if permitted to be operated, would cause health hazards to the people around the same and this Court shall, therefore, interdict the erection of the same.