THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14585 of 2009 ORDER: According to the petitioners, their residential plots are situated in Sy.No.212 of Ganapavaram village, Nadendla Mandal, Guntur District. Their grievance is that within their residential locality, the respondents 5 and 6 are proposing to erect the cell tower, without obtaining valid permission from the 4th respondent-Gram Panchayat, and that such erection would cause health hazards to them. Hence, this writ petition. The principles of law on the point are no more res integra. In M.Balaram v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.[1], it was observed that the permission from the Gram Panchayat, for erection of cell tower, is not required. In the said M.Balaram’s case, it was held as under: “ I have carefully examined the provisions of Section 99 and I am of the view that the said provision is attracted only where the owner or occupier of any building proposes to put up verandahs, balconies, sunshades, weather frames and the like to project over a public road vested in such Gram Panchayat. The learned Counsel also relied on Section 121 of the Act in this regard. The said provision is not attracted either, because it pertains to the requirement of permission to be obtained from the Gram Panchayat for construction of a building. Section 2(3) of the Act defined ‘building’ as including a house, outhouse, shop, stable, latrine, shed (other than a cattle shed in an agricultural land), hut, wall and any other such structure whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or other material whatsoever. In my opinion, a metallic structure, which does not have any characteristic of house, out-house, shop, stable etc., does not fall within the definition of building. The words “whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or other material” used in the said definition were preceded by the words “such structure” which necessarily means the structures such as house, out-house, shop, stable, latrine, shed etc., as mentioned in the earlier part of the definition. Therefore, this contention of the learned Counsel is rejected. As regards the submission of the learned Counsel that erection of a cell tower causes health hazards, the learned Counsel has not filed any material which authoritatively established that operation of cell towers causes such health hazards. The plea of the petitioner in this regard is merely based on his apprehension rather than on established fact. Therefore, this Court cannot accept such a plea in the absence of any proof in support thereof.” In view of the above, I find no merit in this writ petition and the writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 24.12.2010 v v [1] 2010 (6) ALD 34