IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 3225 of 2011(O) ---------------------------------- CMA.37/2011 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY ........................................................................ PETITIONER: -------------------- KIZHAKKE NAMATH NANU, S/O.CHATHU, AGED 75 YEARS, KIZHAKKENAMATH, PANNIYANNOOR AMSOM, CHAMBAD DESOM, P.O.CHAMBAD, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SUDEVAN V.D., VIOMNET WORK LTD., 50/953 J & CO. CHAMBERS, MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM - 682024. 2. ALEEMA, W/O.MAMMAD, AGED 55 YEARS, MUNEER MANZIL, PANNIYANNOOR AMSOM, CHAMBAD DESOM, P.O.CHAMBAD, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670694. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STU OP(C).No. 3225 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 10/06/2011 IN I.A. NO. 1169/2011 IN O.S.NO.176/2011 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 01/09/2011 IN CMA NO. 37/2011 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THALASSERY. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DTD 02/05/2011 OF THE ACTION COMMITTEE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE STU THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.3225 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 10th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Plaintiff in O.S. No.176 of 2011 of the court of learned Munsiff, Thalassery is the petitioner, challenging Ext.P2, judgment of learned Sub Judge, Thalassery in C.M.A. No.37 of 2011 upsetting the order passed by the learned Munsiff on I.A. No.1169 of 2011. Petitioner wanted to prevent the respondents from installing a telecommunication tower in the suit property on various grounds including that it is a thickly populated area and that installation of the tower would cause health hazards. Learned Munsiff as per Ext.P1, order granted temporary injunction. Challenging that, the first respondent filed C.M.A.No.37 of 2011. Leaned Sub Judge allowed the appeal holding that there is no material on record to show that installation of the tower would cause health hazards. That judgment is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no justifiable reason to reverse Ext.P1, order. It is also submitted that the tower is being installed in a thickly populated area. Learned counsel submitted that permit granted for installation of the tower O.P(C) No.3225 of 2011 -: 2 :- is under challenge before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government in O.P. No.1386 of 2011. In the circumstances installation of the tower ought to have been prevented as directed in Ext.P1, order. 3. The ground upon which petitioner sought injunction against installation of the tower is health hazards due to the alleged radiation emanating from the telecommunication tower. A Division Bench of this Court in Reliance Infocom v. Chemanchery Grama Panchyat (2006(4) KLT 695) has held that the RF exposures from Mobile Base Stations are much less than from radio, FM radio and television transmissions and the consensus of scientific community is that the radiation from direct access to the antenna. A later Division Bench in Essar Telecommunications (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KLT 516) held that if there is radiation in deviation from the international standards, operation is liable to be visited with serious consequences including stoppage of operation. The appellate court has also referred to the above decisions and held that as of now there is no material to hold that radiation if any emanating from the telecommunication tower violates the O.P(C) No.3225 of 2011 -: 3 :- international standards. As such there is no reason for this Court to interfere with Ext.P2, judgment. But I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to raise the question regarding the health hazards during the trial of the case. Petitioner can also urge his contention in O.P. No.1386 of 2011 before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government. Learned Munsiff is directed to expedite trial and disposal of the suit. Original Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv