WP(C) 2221/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA . Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel representing the Respondent No.7. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer :- Under the above premises, it is most respectfully prayed that Your Lordship wou ld be graciously pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue rul e calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why appropriate writ, order o r directions shall not be issued commanding the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lakhipur, Cachar to restrain the Reliance Teleco m Ltd. to set up/erect its Network Tower in the adjacent land to the petitioners (within their jurisdiction) and after hearing the parties and on perusal of rec ord Your Lordships would be pleased to make the rule absolute as prayed for here in above and/or pass such further or other order or orders as Your Lordships ma y deem fit and proper considering the facts and circumstances of the case. An interim order dated 8.6.2009 was passed directing to maintain status quo in r espect of erection of the tower in question. The Respondent No.7 has filed Misc. Case No.151/2010 seeking vacation of the interim order. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that under similar circumstances and pertaining to the same issue, Title Suit No.69/2009 had been filed by anoth er person of the same locality. By order dated 29.9.2009 passed in Misc. Case No .93/2009 arising out of the said suit, the learned Munsiff No.2, Silchar, Cachar taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances, has rejected the prayer for injunction. In the writ petition, the apprehension expressed by the p etitioner is that the installation of the tower will lead to health hazard. In t his connection, the statements made in paragraphs 3, 5 and 10 are reproduced bel ow :- 3. That your petitioners beg to state that as their residential houses are within a radius of 100 meter of the said high power network tower they are likel y to be adversely affected by the Electromagnetic radiation emitted by the prop osed tower amongst other likely hazardous like Noise pollution arising from the high power Diesel Generator Sets used by such towers consistently throughout the day, the fire hazard from use of such D.G. Sets etc. the apprehension of the fi re hazard arises from the fact that it may trigger an inferno in the premises of Sri Rakesh Singh, located in the immediately adjacent plot, when he is running a business of Storing & Selling of highly inflammable substance i.e. Kerosene vi de licence No.LFCS/PDS/LR/2002-03/66 dated 03.02.2003. 5. That your petitioners state that the proposed construction site of the m obile tower is situated in the Pailapur Urban area and if the respondents succee d in erecting their mobile tower then it will create huge noise pollution, radia tion pollution and will disturb the inhabitants of the locality, specially the s tudent and elderly person who will suffer more than others. There is also a scho ol in the vicinity of 30 to 40 units whose functioning will be greatly affected and as a result the existence of such an important institution of the society li ke the school is threatened because the high level of noise, will render teachin g impossible. Last but not the least the local population not only faces the prospect of their enjoyment of life being ruined by the constant 24 hours nois e pollution but also faces health hazards due to constant exposure to a high lev el of noise caused by the generator sets and the exposure to radiation from the said mobile tower. 10. That your humble petitioners beg to submit that the respondent No. ought to have keeping in mind the proven health hazards to which human beings are exp osed by Electromagnetic Radiation from Telecom, the Noise Pollution could have a nd ought to have selected a Hilltop in the nearby area to construct and erect th eir Mobile Tower but to perhaps to save on cost/expenditure for doing the same o n a hilltop has decided to sacrifice concern for human safety to their profit ma rgin. Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the Respondent No.7 has brought to m y notice that the order dated 29.9.2009 passed in WP(C) No.5755/2007, by which u nder similar circumstances, his Court on the same issue provided that the Deputy Commissioner would consider the matter by taking into account the safety measur e. For a ready reference, the operative part of the said order is quoted below : - During course of argument, it is strenuously urged by Mr. Borbhuiyan that no pr ior permission from the State authorities or the Deputy Commissioner before cons tructing such tower was obtained. But the learned counsel failed to produce any law or executive instruction or guidelines from any authority to justify his con tention. Apparently there is no such requirement of law for obtaining prior perm ission from the State authorities. Since certain apprehension has been alleged b y the petitioner as regards safety of his residence and approached the Deputy Co mmissioner, in my considered opinion, the Deputy Commissioner should consider th e matter by taking note of the safety measure. In that view of the matter, I dis pose of this writ petition with the direction that the Deputy Commissioner, Cach ar shall dispose of the application filed by the petitioner on 15.10.2007 and pa ss appropriate speaking order thereon. Both the parties shall appear before the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, on 5.8.2009 to obtain further instruction. On that date the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, shall hear both the parties or any other d ate. It is not for the writ Court to make a roving enquiry as to the feasibil ity or otherwise the installation of the particular tower in a particular locali ty. The writ petitioner has not stated anything in the writ petition so as to point out as to how his own right is going to be affected in view of the instal lation of the tower. Further, the civil Court having taken note of all the disp uted questions of fact and having rejected the prayer for injunction by the afor esaid order dated 29.9.2009, the judicial decorum demands that the said position should be maintained. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner on the basis on which the writ petition is structured. Accordingly, the same is dismiss ed. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated.