IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1785 of 2008(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S. IDEA MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS LTD., SECOND FLOOR, MERCY ESTATE, RAVIPURAM, COCHIN 682 015, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, SRI.RAMACHANDRAN.C. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, MELOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MELOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. MELOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE, MELOOR P.O., PIN 680 311 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 3. MR.I.V.SUNIL, IMBALUPARAMBIL VEEDU, KUNNAMPILLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 311. BY SRI.JOHN NUMPELI (R1 & R2) BY ADV. 5RI.V.AJITH (R3) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 1785 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January , 2008 JUDGMENT The Panchayat has filed a detailed counter affidavit. Along with the counter affidavit, the Panchayat has produced Exts.R1(a) and R1 (b) complaints, on the basis of which the 2nd respondent Committee directed the first respondent Secretary to issue Ext.P1 order observing that the Secretary acted within the statutory limits while permitting installation of the tower in question. 2. I have heard the submissions of Sri.Santhosh Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.John Numpeli the learned counsel for the Panchayat and Sri.V.Ajith the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, who is one of the signatories to Ext.R1(a) and R1(b). On going through Ext.R1(a) and R1(b), it is seen that the objection of the complainants is that the tower is situated at a distance of 10 meters only from the residential houses of most of them. Sri.Ajith the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent drew my attention to the nature of the apprehension in the light of the complaints. The learned counsel would submit that the complainants apprehend health WPC No,1785/2008 2 hazards to them on account of the radiation resulting from the energisation of the tower. He also submits that there is apprehension about sound pollution which would be generated due to the working of the generator. As for health hazards resulting from energisation of the tower, it has to be noticed that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in Reliance Infocom Ltd. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat (2006 (4) KLT 695). As for the sound pollution on account of the working of the generator, it should be noticed that the installation and working of the generator are all regulated by the Rules. Grievance regarding the proximity from the residential house it is to be noticed that these are all matters governed by rules and even Ext.P1 points out that issuance of permit by the Secretary has been in accordance with the Rules in question. The tower is yet to be energised since what has been permitted is only construction of the tower. It is too early for the local public to complain about sound pollution since the generator has not been installed yet. It is clear from Ext.P1 that the principles laid down by this court in Reliance Infocom Ltd.case (supra) has not been taken into account at all. I therefore quash Ext.P1 and direct the secretary of the Panchayat to take a fresh decision after hearing the petitioner and the WPC No,1785/2008 3 3rd respondent, who will represent all the complainants in Ext.R1(a) and R1(b). While taking fresh Decision, the Secretary of the Panchayat will have due regard to the judgment of this court in Reliance Infocom Ltd. Case (Supra). Fresh decision as directed above, shall be taken at the earliest and and at any rate within one month of receiving a copy of this judgment. If the installation of the tower is over the company is permitted to energise the tower subject to the fresh decision to be taken by the Secretary pursuant to this judgment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk