IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 7820 of 2009(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. SANDEEP, S/O. KUMARAN, AGED 26 YEARS, POTTANCHERY HOUSE, THEYYALUNGAL POST, TANUR VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. RAJESH BABU, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 33 YEARS, POTTANCHERRY HOUSE, THEYYALUNGAL POST, TANUR VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.K.P.SUDHEER, SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANUR POLICE STATION, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. NANNAMBRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANNAMBRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, NANNAMBRA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. RELIANCE INFRATEL LIMITED, A & P ARCADE, SAHODARAN AYYAPPAN ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.7820 of 2009-V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.Going by the amended writ petition, the fifth respondent is a telecommunication service provider. It sought permission for the installation of a telecommunication tower. Though that was granted on 18.9.2008, the local people objected and the permit issued was cancelled on 11.11.2008. That became subject matter of a proceeding before the Tribunal for LSGIs. The Tribunal set aside that order. It held two grounds against the Panchayat. The Panchayat Secretary was criticised of having acted on the ipse dixit of the Panchayat Committee which was not authorised to interfere in the matter. Secondly and more importantly, it was found by the Tribunal that the health hazard problem projected in the mass representation before the WPC7820/09 -: 2 :- Panchayat committee was irrelevant an issue and in so far as Ext.P1 is concerned, it would look into only the provisions of KMBR to the extent it applies. 2.The petitioners plead that though they were parties to the mass representation which generated the cancellation of the building permit, they were not made parties before the Tribunal and the Panchayat authorities did not contest that matter and the fifth respondent operator had, essentially, a walkover before the Tribunal. It is pointed out that the right of the local residents to agitate the issue stands answered in favour of the petitioners by this Court in Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. C.I.of Police, 2008(4) KHC 657(DB). 3.On grounds of justice based on ground realities, the plea is that the telecommunication tower, if installed, would adversely affect the health of the local residents. This is not sustained on the WPC7820/09 -: 3 :- basis of any material reliable as expert scientific material. In Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat, 2006(4) KLT 695, it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that the materials abundantly showed the lack of any adverse impact of telecommunication towers on health. Later, in different matters, it has also been noticed by this Court that the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram had opined on 2.2.2005 in its communication to the Andoorkonam Grama Panchayat that scientific studies suggest that exposure to low intensity non-thermal radio frequency fields do not impair the health of humans or animals and that the radio frequency fields generated near mobile towers are thousands of times lower than the recommended maximum exposure levels. With these materials being available, there was no reason why the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of the Panchayat Secretary vacating the building permit. The question whether the Panchayat Secretary ought not to have acted on the WPC7820/09 -: 4 :- directions of the Panchayat Committee, therefore, becomes academic. But still, when a particular power; quasi-judicial or judicial; is reposed in a particular authority, that too, on the basis of statutory provisions, it does not lie for any other authority, including a superior authority, to guide the decision-making process of the repository of that power. 4.This takes me to the contention that the petitioners were neither impleaded nor heard by the Tribunal. It does not appear that the Tribunal was notified of the fact that the petitioners were among the signatories to the mass representation before the Panchayat Committee. Assuming that the Tribunal had faulted in disposing the matter without hearing at least a representative from among the mass that had made the objections; having regard to the findings reached above on the basis of the facts, I do not find that there is any case of gross injustice demonstrated, warranting the exercise WPC7820/09 -: 5 :- of the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the result, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/091109