1. Petitioners, who are residents of village Kharian Tehsil R. S. Pura of Jammu District, have filed this writ petition, seeking restraint order against the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in installing the Cellular Tower in the land of respondent No. 7, on the ground that the erection of the Tower is being undertaken in the land which is purely residential area and it has the chances of endangering the lives of the inhabitants of the area. It is further contended that erection of huge tower by respondents will be a continuous threat to the lives of the inhabitants, as the same is being installed near the houses of the petitioners. While making submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners, has stated that petitioner No. 1 is a heart patient and by erecting the Tower in question, his problem will increase further. 2. The stand of the respondent No. 6, on the other hand is that the erection of the tower is not being undertaken in a residential area but in a commercial area. To support its contention, respondent No. 6 has relied upon the site plan attached by son of petitioner No. 1 with a civil suit filed before the Civil Court, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that petitioner No. 1, besides his house has constructed seven shops and he could not be allowed to say that area is purely a residential area. It is further contended that on same issue a civil suit was filed by the son of petitioner No. 1, wherein no interim injunction was issued and said suit was subsequently dismissed in default. Once remedy was exhausted by the petitioners, they cannot maintain the present writ petition. The other ground taken is that erection of Cellular Towers does not, in any way cause health hazards to the people residing nearby nor does it infringes any right to life. It is further contended that under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, respondent No. 6 has been awarded a licence to provide basic telephone services and under Section 10 of the Act, the respondents are well within their rights to establish and maintain lines and posts under, over, along or across any immoveable property. 3. It is further contended that under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, respondent No. 6 has been awarded a licence to provide basic telephone services and under Section 10 of the Act, the respondents are well within their rights to establish and maintain lines and posts under, over, along or across any immoveable property. 3. Respondent No. 7, who is owner of the land upon which the Tower is being erected, has filed his separate objections wherein it is stated that writ petition has been filed just to harass him and settle past scores. He further states that all the petitioners are related to each other and they have not raised any objection in erection of Tower of another Telecom Company in the same area during the pendency of this writ petition. He further contends that having failed in civil litigation filed by son of petitioner No. 1, the present writ petition has been filed which is not maintainable. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The question that arises for determination in this writ petition is as to whether installation of Cellular Tower and its functioning could cause any health hazard to the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on some journals and newspaper cuttings, which cannot be relied upon in view of the fact that power of the respondents to regulate the telegraph lines and posts is in terms of Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which gives authority to the respondents to place, maintain a telegraph line under, over, along or across, and posts in or upon, any immoveable property. 7. The grievance of the petitioners is that by installation of the Tower, their lives would be impaired. However, this plea is not supported by any expert opinion to say that installation of Cellular Tower would be hazardous. 8. 7. The grievance of the petitioners is that by installation of the Tower, their lives would be impaired. However, this plea is not supported by any expert opinion to say that installation of Cellular Tower would be hazardous. 8. A similar issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat, AIR 2007 Ker 33 , where it was held as under:-- "We have already found that RF exposures from Mobile Base Stations are much less than from radio, FM radio and television transmissions and that the consensus of scientific community is that the radiation from Mobile Phone Base Stations is far too low to produce health hazards if people are kept away from direct access to the antenna and the overall evidence indicates that they are unlikely to pose a risk to health........" 9. It may be noticed here that erection of Tower by respondent No. 6 has been allowed after the no objection certificate was issued by the Pollution Control Board and expert opinion regarding the soil was obtained by the respondents. The respondents are well within their rights to erect the tower under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, however, what is required to be done by the respondents is that people are kept away from direct access to the antenna of the Tower. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 has stated at the Bar that erection of the tower would be strictly in accordance with the rules. 11. For all what has been said above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, respondent No. 6 is directed to strictly comply with the rules governing the subject while erecting and operating the Cellular Tower. 12. Interim directions dated 10-10-2008 shall stand vacated.