CWP No.20078 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20078 of 2011 Date of Decision: 31.10.2011 Palwinder Singh and others ..... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, ACJ. 1. The instant petition has been filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a direction to respondent No.3 i.e. M/s Airtel, Industrial Area, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh restraining them from operating the mobile tower adjoining house of petitioner No.1 which is circulated in the thick of village. A further prayer has been made to restrain them from providing add on facility to other mobile companies. 2. For the redressal of their grievance, the petitioners have already sent a legal notice dated 15.07.2011 (Anenxure P-4) to all the respondents. In para no.13 of the writ petition, the petitioners have reproduced guidelines issued by the Municipal Corporation, Delhi which are claimed to have been framed under the instructions of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). According to the petitioners, these guidelines are mandatory and CWP No.20078 of 2011 -2- has been violated by M/s Airtel, Industrial Area, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh – respondent No.3. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. AG, Punjab who is present in Court accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents. Two copies of the paper book shall be handed over to him during the course of the day. 5. Keeping in view the nature of the controversy raised in the writ petition and the fact that there are powers given to the Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area for removal of any public nuisance under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to decide the legal notice and pass a speaking order. If respondent No.2 feels the necessity of referring the matter to Sub Divisional Magistrate, he may do so without any constraint because under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sub Divisional Magistrate may be better to exercise its writ jurisdiction. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of. (M.M. KUMAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 31.10.2011 manju