IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5748 of 2009 Between: Chappidi Gopal Reddy S/o. Venkata Narayana Reddy R/o. Door No.4-1-112, Ankalamma Temple Street, Pulivendula, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M) Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Pulivendula Municipality Rep. by its Commissioner Pulivendula, Kadapa District. 3 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) Rep. by its General Manager Telecom, Kadapa District- 516 001. 4 The Divisional Engineer Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) Pulivendula, Kadapa District. 5 Lingala Prasada Reddy R/o. Nagarigutta, Pulivendula Town, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order sor direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in permitting the 4th respondent to install a cell phone tower in the residential locality of Nagarigutta, Pulivendula Town & Municipality by virtue of Lr.No.1514-2/G1/2009, dated 7-2-2009, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to refrain from installing any cell phone tower in the said residential locality. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.ROY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that the 1st respondent issued orders in G.O. Ms. No.183 dated 27.2.2008 permitting the installation of ground based, rooftop towers shelters and antennas etc. subject to certain conditions to be complied with, one such being, the applicant shall furnish No Objection Certificate from the surrounding building owners, and also from the building owner concerned in case of rooftop installation. The petitioner further states that he is the resident of Pulivendula village and he and his neighbours raised objections on 8.12.2008 to the proposed installation of a cell phone tower. The petitioner states that the cell phone towers are known to be an environmental hazard and operation of the same is very much detrimental to human health in view of the radio frequency radiation that is emitted from the cell phone towers, which may cause serious terminal illness to human beings like malignancy (cancer), damage to various vital organs, adverse effect on immune system of the human body, but it is his grievance that even though the petitioner and the neighbours of the Pulivendula Municipal area have not given any No Objection Certification to the installation of the cell phone tower, the 2nd respondent-Municipality, in violation of the conditions of G.O.Ms.No.183, permitted the Divisional Engineer, to establish cell phone tower within Pulivendula Municipal limits over the land belonging to the 5th respondent by his letter dated 7.2.2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Pulivendula Municipality appearing for the 2nd respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for Pulivendula Municipality appearing for respondent No.2 has produced a letter dated 25.2.2009, according to which, the Commissioner of the Pulivendula Municipality cancelled his order dated 7.2.2009 and instructed the 4th respondent- Divisional Engineer to stop the erection of Cell tower in the premises in question immediately, in the interest of the public, inasmuch as the 5th respondent has failed to furnish No Objection Certificate from the surrounding building owners. Since the 2nd respondent, vide his proceedings dated 25.2.2009, has cancelled his earlier order dated 7.2.2009, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly closed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 20th March, 2009 bcj