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. 4551 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DAVIS ANTONY,AGED 45 YRS,S/O.ANTHONY, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, PARIYARAM.P.O, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.S.RAJENDRAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PARIYARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PARIYARAM.PO, THRISSUR. 2. M/S DISHNET WIRELESS LIMITED NO.9419/33/ 2365,RR ARCADE, GEETHANJALI BUS STOP, THAMMANAM.PO VYTTILA, COCHIN-32. 3. PAULY, S/O OUSEPH, PADINJAREKKARA HOUSE, PARIYARAM.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON 28/10/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.4551/09 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERNATIONALLY ESTABLISHED GUIDELINES REGARDING THESAFETYOF INSTALLING TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER MENTIONED IN “CELLULAR ALERT CANADA”. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PANCHAYAT DATED 6.12.2008. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION FILED BY PERSONS IN THE NEARBY AREA DTD.22.12.2008. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTR DATED 6.1.09 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.4551 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed on the ground that the telecommunication tower proposed by the second respondent should not be permitted to be installed. Directions are sought to the first respondent grama panchayat to desist from issuing licence. Ext.P1 is stated to be certain guidelines. But the fact of the matter remains that the issuance of building permit for mobile phone tower is governed by the statute law and the permission is granted on the basis of various other legislations. If the mobile tower operator has necessary permits from the competent authorities, it is not advisable that they are interfered with in writ jurisdiction. Not only that, as already held by this Court in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat [2006(4) KLT 695], health hazards and other objections referable to the choice of site are matters which are entirely away from any scientific data. Moreover, the objections WPC.4551/09 Page numbers relating to the choice of site is a matter best left to the wisdom of those empowered to issue the permit. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to issue any direction in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.28/10.