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. 5463 of 2009(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SEBASTIAN VATTAPARAMBIL, S/O. JOSEPH, VATTAPARAMBIL, KOONAMMAVU, MESTRIPADI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 518. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, A & P ARCADE, SAHODARAN AYYAPPAN ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED POWER OF ATTORNYE HOLDER, THE CIRCLE LEGAL MANAGER, SRI. RAJA RAJA VARMA. 2. KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KOONAMMAVOO, PIN - 683 518, ERNAKULAM DIST. 3. KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, -DO- R2 BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON 28/10/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.5463/09 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED NIL. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 TO R1 DATED 15.10.2008. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS IN APPEAL NO.676/08 DATED 19.12.2008. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.5463 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner and other respondents objected, by means of a mass petition, to the installation of a mobile phone tower on ground that it will geopardise the health of the residents. The panchayat, acting on that petition, issued a stop memo and later cancelled the permit. The first respondent carried that matter to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions with only the panchayat authorities as respondents. This writ petition is filed alleging that the petitioner and none among those who were parties to the mass petition at whose instance the panchayat has cancelled the licence, were heard by the tribunal. 2.Though it was not advisable for the tribunal to set aside an order without hearing the persons at whose instance that order was issued, the fact of the matter remains that Ext.P2 WPC.5463/09 Page numbers stop memo was issued solely referring to an objection regarding the installation of the mobile tower on a ground referable to the contents of Ext.P1, which objection, in terms, relate only to allegation that the mobile tower, if installed, would result in causing various health hazards like cancer, genetic modulation, skin diseases etc. With those grounds having been the foundation for the action taken by the tribunal against the first respondent, it needs to be noted that the Panchayat Raj Act does not contain any provision to take action on such ground. Not only that, in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat [2006(4) KLT 695], the Division Bench of this Court categorically laid down that objections to such effect has no bearing since there is no proven material to hold that mobile phone towers create health hazards. It has also been noticed by this Court in different other matters, which are already disposed of, that the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram had also issued an opinion that the electro magnetic radiation emissions from WPC.5463/09 Page numbers mobile telecommunication towers are much below the bench mark of any impact on human beings and animals etc. At any rate, I do not find that ends of justice requires interference of the impugned order of the tribunal though it has been issued without hearing the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.28/10.