KODAVALI UDAYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed "to declare the action of respondents 1 to 8 in not stopping the installation of the Telecommunication Infrastructure Tower by respondents 9 and 10 over the residential house of the 10th respondent bearing D.No.28-9-7, Bodavari Street, Ganesh Chowk, Jampeta, Rajahmundry, without considering the representation dtd. 2/8/2019, as illegal and arbitrary."

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that, he is a resident of building bearing D.No.28-9-7, Bodavari Street, Rajahmundry and the 10th respondent is the owner of the said building, which is located in a narrow street admeasuring less than 15 ft. width and is thickly populated; the 10th respondent leased out the terrace of the building to the 9th respondent for installation of telecommunications infrastructure tower, for which the 4th respondent issued a provisional no objection certificate vide proceedings dtd. 29/5/2019; basing on said permission, the 9th respondent is trying to erect a tower on the terrace of the 10th respondent, same is 11 KM away from Rajahmundry air port and is not fit for installation of the tower, as it is 20 years old building and does not have capacity to bear the load; the Welfare Officer of the Government Girls Hostel, has also addressed a letter requesting to stop the installation of the tower, as the same is hazardous to health; respondents 9 and 10 without obtaining permission from the 7th and 8th respondents, submitted an application and the 4th respondent issued provisional no objection certificate and hence, the permission granted by the 4th respondent is illegal. On 7/8/2019, when the writ petition came up for admission, this court granted interim direction to the 4th respondent to stop erection of the cell tower by respondents 9 and 10.

(3.) Counter-affidavit has been filed by the 9th respondent along with the vacate stay petition, stating inter-alia that they have applied for permission to the 4th respondent Corporation after complying with all the requirements and after satisfying itself that the petitioner company has completed all the requirements, had accorded provisional NOC vide proceedings dtd. 29/5/2019 and petitioner company commenced the erection of tower; the allegation that the said area is thickly populated and that the schools, hospitals, vegetable market are there and that the airport is only 11 KM away are all false; further allegations with regard to the age of the building and stability are also false; the 9th respondent has obtained structural stability certificate before applying for permission and the 4th respondent after being satisfied with all the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.146, had accorded provisional permission for erection of telecommunication infrastructure tower; petitioner has not mentioned, which of the rules or guidelines have been violated; the allegation of ill-effect of emission of radiation are premature and without any basis; radiation related issues have to be dealt with by the Telecom Enforcement Resource and Monitoring (TERM) Cell of the Department of Telecommunication and any person can approach the said authority; petitioner has got an alternative remedy of approaching the TERM Cell with regard to his grievance about the radiation after the tower becomes functional; similar issue had been dealt by the Division Bench of this Court in WP No.3137 of 2017 dtd. 9/4/2019; petitioner did not challenge the permission, which is granted by the 4th respondent and that the 9th respondent has to complete the tower within the time bound frame i.e., within one month, to enable the service providers to install their equipments to make it functional, failing which 9th respondent has to pay huge amount towards demurrages for delay and prays to vacate the interim order.