HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH. BILASPUR WP,lClXa^8880F^010 PETrFJONER Jitendra Kumar Gupta, S/o Shri J.P. Gupta, aged about 41 years, Resident of Piot No. 18, Ward No. 8, Sundernagar, Kohka, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) Vs. RESPONDENTS 1. Union of india, Through the Secretary, Department of Telecommunication, New De!hi. 2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Through: Generat Manager, Teiecommunication, District Durg 3, Munidpal Corporation, Bhilai, Through: Commjssioner, Bhiiai, District Durg (C.G.) 4. The DIstrict Magistrate, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) 5. Govind Singh Rajput, aged about 55 years, R/o Plot No. 19, Ward A, Surendranagar, Kohka, Bhiiai, District Durg (C.G.) Appeararsce: Ivlr. Anup rvlazumdar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, Advocate for respondent No.l/Union of India. Mr. R.M. Soiapurkar, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for respondent No3. Mr. Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for respondent No.4. ivlr. Roop Naik, Advocate for respondent No.5. . ORAL^ORDER (09.02.2011) Heard finally wlth the consent of learned counsel tor the partles. Petitioner- Jitendra Kumar Gupta is resident of Piot No. 18, Sundemagar, Bhiiai, District Durg (C.G.). Respondent No.5 is the neighbour of the petitioner, vwose house Is situated on adjoining P!ot No. 19. A Mobile Tower belonging to ^^aw—""— *»f " ^"-^ ff^; ^ t '^- "Y.- %^^y sm W.P.(CIN0.28880F2010 % respondent No.2 has been instailed on the right corner of the first floor of the house of respondent No.5. ivlr. Majumdar, learned counsei for the petitioner, submits that the above rnobiie to'wer instalied at the first floor in the house of respondent No.5 is creating nuisance for the residents of the locality inciuding the petitioner. The petitioner made various efforts by approaching to the concerned authorities, but no action v^as taken by them, therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and has prayed that the respondent authonties may be directed to shift the mobi!e tower InstaSied in the house of respondenf No.5 to a piace from where the premtees of the petitioner is free from the nuisance created due to the said mobile towe>. The petltioner has aiso prayed for a dlrection to respondent No.3 to reconsider the terms and contentions of the permission granted to respondent No.2 to instal! the tower at the place where it is presentiy situated. Adrnittedly, the permission to install the mobile towers are being granted as per provislons contained in circuiar dated 18.11.09 (Annexure-P-8). Ciause 10 of circuiar dated 18.11.09 provides as under:- (10. W^i SZW ^%TT ^t ^fe ^ 'TOC?) Fl^ ^t "ci^T 4 ^^ 9^4 ^ ^ wr wNt i viTTto N:?ft ~^T c^' ^ TTI^FI f^T yTHT ^N^T fem viTtl" A perusai of the aforesaid provisions of the circular wouid make it clear that t'ne permlssion granted for installation of mobile tower can be cancellsd in the situations contained in dause 10. The contention of Mr. Mlajumdar is that the eraction of the tower in the house of respondent No.5 is also dangerous from security point of vlew. Et is not at all in the interst of the pubiic because it js creating nuisance to the public at iarge and since the petitioner is next door neighbour of the respondent No.5, therefore, the petitioner is facing hard. The respondents have filed their returns and have denied the contentions raised by the petitioner. in light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, i deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with direction that if so adviced, the petitioner may fiie an application/complaint under clause 10 of circuiar dated 18.11.09 before the concerned authority within in a period of 15 days for cancellation ofthe permission to install tower on the grounds projected in the writ petition and also on other grounds which may be available to the petitioner; and if ^^^^^ .^"" f: ":":^.. :'"f^ ^ •f, / '-^:^^' W.P.(C)N0.28880F2010 such an application is fiied, the same shalt be considered and dlsposed of by the concemed authorities in light of provisions of ciause 10 of circular dated 18.11.09 and In accordance with !aw After glving due opportunity of hearing to the concerned persons and also after making due inquiry in this regard. We hope and trust that If such appiication/complaint Is filed, the same would be disposed of wit'nSn a period of3 months from the date offiiing ofthe said appiication/compiaint. With the aforesaid obseivation/direction, the writ petition stands finaliy dssposed of. There shai! be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^ahyl