Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 423 (ORI)

Rabindra Kumar Bisoi v. State of Orissa

2011-08-10

B.N.MAHAPATRA, V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2011
JUDGMENT B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. — In the present writ petition challenge has been made to the construction of mobile tower by opposite party No.8- The General Manager, North-East Circle, Assam Region, Telecom Circle of Wireless, Tata & IT Services Ltd., At : DN-30, Sector-5, Salt Lake, Calcutta-91 and opposite party No.9-The General Manager, Idea Cellular Ltd., Plot No.437, Ground Floor, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar, Dist : Khurda in a prohibited Bhoodan area and inaction of opposite party No.7-Tahasildar, Puri in not prohibiting/evicting the unauthorized occupants from the said Bhoodan land on the ground that such construction in the Bhoodan land is illegal and also detrimental to the public life. 2.Petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that they are permanent residents of Penthakata area under Puri Sea Beech Police Station in the District of Puri. They are public spirited persons and always interested for development and upliftment of the local area. They have filed this writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. Except larger interest of public in agitating the grievance of the local people, the petitioners have no other interest. According to the petitioners, opposite party No.8 and 9 have illegally constructed Mobile Towers in the Bhoodan land. The petitioners approached the Administrative Officer, Bhoodan Yagna Samiti, Bhubaneswar who is the competent authority, by filing a representation, under the Orissa Bhoodan and Gramadan Act, 1970 (for short, “Act, 1970”) to evict the encroachers. Pursuant to such representation, the Administrative Officer vide its letter dated 30.05.2009 (Annexure-2 series) intimated to the Tahasildar, Puri about the illegal construction of Mobile Towers over Bhoodan Plots in Balukhanda Penthakata area, Puri and requested to stop construction of the towers. The Tahasildar, Puri in connivance with opposite party Nos.8 and 9 did not take any effective action rather he has encouraged the said opposite parties to go ahead with the work. In spite of several representations made to the different authorities, no appropriate action has been taken by them. Hence, the present writ petition. 3.Mr. S.K. Dalai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Bhoodan and Gramadan Act is an Act to facilitate donation of land for Bhoodan Yagna and Gramadan. The Act has been enacted for distribution of land to the landless persons, who don’t own any land or who owns land which does not exceed such limits as may be prescribed. S.K. Dalai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Bhoodan and Gramadan Act is an Act to facilitate donation of land for Bhoodan Yagna and Gramadan. The Act has been enacted for distribution of land to the landless persons, who don’t own any land or who owns land which does not exceed such limits as may be prescribed. As per Section 26(b) of the Act, 1970, if any person is found to be in unauthorized occupation of any land of the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti, the Tahasildar having jurisdiction can remove the unauthorized encroachers after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing. But in the instant case, in spite of the request made by the Administrative Officer, no action has been taken by the Tahasildar. It is submitted that opposite party Nos.8 and 9 by using money and political power have gained over the authorities for which they are not taking any action against them. It is further submitted that because of functioning of the Mobile Towers over the land in question, it creates environmental pollution and health hazards in the locality. Mr. Dalai, further submitted that Rule 13(4) of the Orissa Bhoodan and Gramadan Rules, 1972 (for short, “Rules, 1972”) envisages that all alienations by way of mortgage, sale, lease, exchange, gift, bequest or otherwise of the lands granted under the provisions of the Act shall be void and inoperative. 4.Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.10-Administrative Officer, submits that the land less persons to whom the land have been allotted by the Samiti have no right to alienate the land in any manner. 5.Mr. S.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.8 submits that PIL is not maintainable as the same has been filed without disclosing the grievance as to how public interest is affected by establishing the telecom towers in Bhoodan land. Sri Jyotiprakash Mishra and Smt. Manjushree Mishra, on whose land the telecom towers have been constructed, are not made parties in the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of parties. In support of his contention, Mr. Pattnaik relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramji Singh & eight others v. State of Orissa and others, 2008 (II) CLR 509. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of parties. In support of his contention, Mr. Pattnaik relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramji Singh & eight others v. State of Orissa and others, 2008 (II) CLR 509. It is submitted that opposite party No.8-Company, which is a registered Company under the Companies Act, 1956 has been established for carrying on the business of providing passive infrastructure facilities to the telecom service providers and for that purpose opposite party No.8 erects Mobile Towers and makes it available for use by the telecom service providers. Jyotiprakash Mishra and Manjushree Mishra, who are the recorded land owners of Plot No.50/69, Khata No.73/4, Mouza-Puri Sahara,, Unit No.34, Mouza-Balukhanda, Tahasil - Puri have given licence to opposite party company for setting up of mobile telecom towers on their land. The land owners provided the record of rights and non-encumbrance certificate of the above plot which was recorded as stitiban status in favour of the said land owners. The land was centrally located and ideal for setting up of the telecom tower and was fit for catering the need of providing wireless communication facility to the consumers of that area. An agreement dated 10.04.2009 for leave and licence was executed by the land owners in favour of opposite party No.8 and physical possession of the said land was also delivered. The requisite permission from the Puri Municipality was also obtained under Annexure-B attached to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No.8 for installation of tower. 6.It is further argued that on the basis of the complaint, the Tahasildar, Puri issued a notice to opposite party No.8, who had filed its show-cause reply. A proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. vide Criminal Misc. Case No.636 of 2009 was instituted before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri alleging health hazards to the general public of the locality. In the said case, opposite party No.8 appeared and contested by filing all relevant documents including the “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) of Anchalika Bhoodan Yagna Samiti dated 01.04.2009 and the said case has been dropped by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri vide order dated 03.06.2010. 7.Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel submits that the tower has been built as per the standard specification fixed by the Structural Engineering Research Centre (SERC), Chennai which is a technically qualified organization in the field. 7.Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel submits that the tower has been built as per the standard specification fixed by the Structural Engineering Research Centre (SERC), Chennai which is a technically qualified organization in the field. The height of the transmission tower is 50 metres and the same has been constructed strongly to withstand the wind speed upto 200 KM per hour. The seismic load factor has been kept in view while constructing the tower. It has no health hazard as held by the Kerala High Court in the case of Reliance Infocomm Ltd. v. Chemanchery Gram Panchayat and others, AIR 2007 Ker 33 . Opposite party No.8 has taken all precautions and safety measures before erecting the transmission towers. The Government of India, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunication vide its letter dated 20.08.2007 to the Government of Kerala has clarified that there is no health hazard from the radiations of the Mobile telephone tower since the radiation is well controlled as the equipments used are manufactured under stringent norms as per the international requirement. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of India, New Delhi in a meeting dated 29.05.2006 at the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR), New Delhi held that there is not enough evidence to show direct health hazard of RF exposure from mobile base stations. 8.Mr. Pattnaik, placing reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in the case State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others, 2010 (1) OLR (SC) - 380 and judgment of this Court in the case of Ramji Singh and eight others v. State of Orissa and others, 2008 (II) CLR - 509, submits that PIL should not be entertained unless larger interest of the public is affected. 9.It was submitted that Section 290 (1) of the Orissa Municipal Act provides that the Municipal shall grant licence for the purpose of - (w)using of any industrial purpose any fuel or machinery, (x)doing in the course of industrial process anything which likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life, or health or property. The aforesaid section further provides that before granting any licence, prior public notice is required to be issued. In the present case, no objection had been raised by the residents of the locality including the present petitioners. The aforesaid section further provides that before granting any licence, prior public notice is required to be issued. In the present case, no objection had been raised by the residents of the locality including the present petitioners. The general provision regarding licence and permission is dealt with under Section 337 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950. The opposite party No.8 has also deposited the renewal fee of Rs.1,000/- and the holding tax and trade licence fee for 2010-11. Opposite party No.8 has obtained “No Objection Certificate” from the State Pollution Control Board for establishing a Diesel Generator Set for the use for supplying uninterrupted power supply in case of failure of electric power connection. 10.As per Section 21(c) of the Act, 1970, the allottee shall not transfer the land or the house but shall have heritable right. The use of word ‘transfer’ in Section 21(c) and use of the word ‘alienation’ in Rule 13(4) makes it clear, that the restriction imposed cannot apply to a case of ‘leave and licence’ for a temporary period and as such the permission granted by the land owner to opposite party No.8 for erection of a temporary structure for a temporary period does not make the licence void. Sections 26-A, 26-B and Section 27 of the Act, 1970 provides for cancellation of grant of allotment, eviction of unauthorized occupant and for preferring appeal against the orders passed and Section 29 of the said Act provides for challenging the order before the Civil Court by the person aggrieved. In view of the same, the PIL is not sustainable. 11.On the rival contentions of the parties, the questions that fall for consideration by this Court are as follows : (i)Whether this writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation is maintainable ? (ii)Whether in view of the No Objection Certificate issued by Bhoodan Yagna Samiti and the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality, any right accrues in favour of opposite party No.8 to install mobile tower in the Bhoodan Land ? 12.Question No.(i) is as to whether the petitioners have made out a prima facie case to maintain the writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation. 13.The case of opposite party No.8 is that the allegations of the petitioners that condition of grant of Bhoodan Land is allegedly violated cannot be treated as a grievance affecting the public at large. 13.The case of opposite party No.8 is that the allegations of the petitioners that condition of grant of Bhoodan Land is allegedly violated cannot be treated as a grievance affecting the public at large. In support of his contention, Mr. Pattnaik relied upon the decision of the apex Court in the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) and the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramji Singh (supra). 14.The case of the petitioner is that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can entertain a petition filed by any interested person for the welfare of the people. It is argued by Mr. Dalai that where the administrative decision is harmful to the environment and jeopardised people’s right to natural resources, such as, air and water, the writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation can be maintained before this Court. 15.Undisputedly, the land on which the transmission tower has been constructed is within the Bhoodan Land, which was meant for the poor and landless persons. Order dated 03.06.2010 (Annexure-C) passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri under Section 133 Cr.P.C. reveals that in the said proceedings, inquiry report was sought for from Sea Beach Police Station. The said Police Station reported that the area on which the tower has been installed comes about 200 metres from the sea and local people expect mishap at any time which will cause huge loss of life and property. The further allegations of the petitioners is that the said tower has been constructed in a land belonging to Bhoodan Yagna Samitee and the same is causing sound and air pollution. According to the petitioners, the land allotted to landless and poor persons under the Act, 1970, cannot be in any manner leased out by the allotted for commercial purpose. Since, the mobile transmission tower in question has been installed in Bhoodan land where poor, disadvantaged and weaker section of the people are staying and they are unable to approach the Court individually to protect their statutory, constitutional and civil rights, only six people through the present PIL can vindicate the legal wrong and legal injury caused to them and also the residents of the area as there is infringement of their above rights. 16.At this juncture, it would be beneficial to refer to some of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16.At this juncture, it would be beneficial to refer to some of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under : “...... Today, unfortunately, in our country the poor are priced out of the judicial system with the result that they are losing faith in the capacity of our legal system to bring about changes in their life conditions and to deliver justice to them. The poor in their contact with the legal system have always come across ‘law for the poor’ rather then ‘law of the poor’. The law is regarded by them as something mysterious and forbidding-always taking something away from them and not as a positive and constructive social device for changing the social economic order and improving their life conditions by conferring rights and benefits on them. The result is that the legal system has lost its credibility for the weaker sections of the community.” 17.In Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichan, (1980) 4 SCC 162 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held : “..... Why drive common people to public interest action ? Where directive principles have found statutory expression in do’s and don’ts the Court will not sit idly by and allow municipal government to become a statutory mockery. The law will relentlessly be enforced and the plea of poor finance will be poor alibi when people in misery cry for justice.” 18.In the case of Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and another v. C.K. Rajan and others, (2003) 7 SCC 546 , a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to its earlier Constitution Bench and other large number of decisions held as under: “50. The principles evolved by this Court in this behalf may be suitably summarized as under : (i)The Court in exercise of powers under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain a petition filed by any interested person in the welfare of the people who is in a disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a position to knock the doors of the Court. The Court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfil its constitutional promises. (See S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1981) Supp. The Court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such disadvantaged people so as to direct the State to fulfil its constitutional promises. (See S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1981) Supp. SCC 87, People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCC 494 ; Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161 ; and Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 ). (ii)Issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental rights of a large number of the public vis-a-vis the constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the Court treats a letter or a telegram as a public interest litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law relating to pleadings. (See Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail (1978) 4 SCC 104 and Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 .). (iii)Whenever injustice is meted out to a large number of people, the Court will not hesitate in stepping in. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the International Conventions on Human Rights provide for reasonable and fair trial. (iv)The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to enable the Court to look into the grievances complained on behalf of the poor, the depraved (sic), the illiterate and the disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or legal right. [See Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, S.P. Gupta, People’s Union for Democratic Rights, D.C. Wadhwa (Dr) v. State of Bihar and BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India.] (v)When the Court is prima facie satisfied about variation of any constitutional right of a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the State or the Government from raising the question as to the maintainability of the petition. (See Bandhua Mukti Morcha.)..........” 19.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Jal Board v. National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers and others., (Civil Appeal No.5322 of 2011 decided on 12th July, 2011) held as under : “16. This Court has time and again emphasized the importance of the petitions filed pro bono publico for protection of the rights of less fortunate and vulnerable sections of the Society. This Court has time and again emphasized the importance of the petitions filed pro bono publico for protection of the rights of less fortunate and vulnerable sections of the Society. In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) 3 SCC 235 , the apex Court said : ..... No State has a right to tell its citizens that because a large number of cases of the rich and the well-to-do are pending in our Courts, we will not help the poor to come to the Courts for seeking justice until the staggering load of cases of people who can afford, is disposed of. The time has now come when the Courts must become the Courts for the poor and struggling masses of this country. They must shed their character as upholders of the established order and the status quo. They must be sensitized to the need of doing justice to the large masses of people to whom justice has been denied by a cruel and heatless society for generations. The realization must come to them that social justice is the signature tune of our Constitution and it is their solemn duty under the Constitution to enforce the basic human rights of the poor and vulnerable sections of the community and actively help in the realization of the constitutional goals.” 20.The apex Court in the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra), held that : “.....We would not like to overburden the judgment by multiplying these cases, but a brief resume of these cases demonstrates that in order to preserve and protect the fundamental rights of marginalized, deprived and poor sections of the society, the Courts relaxed the traditional rules of locus standi and broadened the definition of aggrieved persons and gave directions and orders. We would like to term cases of this period where the Court relaxed the rule of locus standi as the first phase of the public interest litigation. The Supreme Court and the High Courts earned great respect and acquired great credibility in the eyes of public because of their innovative efforts to protect and preserve the fundamental rights of people belonging to the poor and marginalized sections of the society.” 21.Thus, Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) supports the case of the petitioners and does not support the case of opposite party No.8. Considering the nature of the prayer and the relief sought for by the petitioners in the present writ petition, Jyotiprakash Mishra and Smt. Manjushree Mishra are not necessary parties and therefore, decision of this Court in the case of Ramji Singh (supra) has no application to the present case. 22.In view of the above, we are of the view that the present writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation is maintainable. 23.Question No.(ii) is as to whether on the basis of No Objection Certificate issued by the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti and the Executive Officer, Puri, any right accrues in favour of opposite party No.8 construct the mobile transmission tower in a land belonging to Bhoodan Yagna Samiti. To deal with question (ii), it is necessary to know what is the Statement of Object and Reasons for enacting the Orissa Bhoodan and Gramdan Act, 1970, and some of the relevant provisions of Act, 1970 and Rule, 1972. 24.The Object and Reasons for enacting the Act, 1970 read as follows : “For the purpose of regulating donation, distribution and management of lands donated to the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti, the Orissa Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1953 (Act 16 of 1953) was enacted. To provide for the establishment of Gramdan villages and matters ancillary thereto in pursuance to the Gramdan movement initiated by Acharya Vinobha Bhave, the Orissa Gramadan Bill, 1965 was introduced in the Assembly on the 27th August, 1965. 2. As the scheme contemplated under the Orissa Gramdan Bill, 1965 was found to be at variance with the scheme under the Orissa Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1953, it is considered inexpedient to have two different conflicting Legislations and instead, it is worthwhile to rationalize the provisions thereof in a composite Bill. 3. 2. As the scheme contemplated under the Orissa Gramdan Bill, 1965 was found to be at variance with the scheme under the Orissa Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1953, it is considered inexpedient to have two different conflicting Legislations and instead, it is worthwhile to rationalize the provisions thereof in a composite Bill. 3. The present Bill seeks to achieve this objective.” 25.Sections 2(a) and 2(h) of the Act, 1970 defines “Bhoodan Yagna” and “landless person” which reads thus : “(a) “Bhoodan Yagna” means the movement initiated by Shri Acharya Vinobha Bhave for the acquisition of lands by way of donation, for distribution to the landless persons, or for a community purpose.” “(h) “landless person” means a person who does not own any land or who owns land which does not exceed such limit, as may be prescribed.” 26.Under Section 3 of the Act, 1970, the State Government shall, by notification, constitute a Samiti by the name of the Orissa Bhoodan Yagna Samiti which shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to enter into contracts and to acquire, hold, administer and dispose of property both moveable and immovable and may, by the said name, sue or sued. 27.Section 26-A of the Act, 1970 defines “Cancellation of grant of allotment”. It reads as follows :- “(1) whenever it comes to the notice - (a)the Samiti, that any person to whom land has been granted under Section 14; or (b)the Grama Parishad, that any person to whom land has been allotted under Clause (a) of Section 19, was not a landless person when such grant or allotment was made, the Samiti or the Grama Parishad, as the case may be, may, after giving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after making such enquiry as it deems fit, make an order cancelling the grant or the allotment, as the case may be.” 28.Sub-rule (4) of Rule 13 of the Rules, 1972, imposes some restrictions. The same is quoted hereunder. “All alienations by way of mortgage, sale, lease, exchange, gift, bequest or otherwise of lands granted under the provisions of this Act shall be void and inoperative. The same is quoted hereunder. “All alienations by way of mortgage, sale, lease, exchange, gift, bequest or otherwise of lands granted under the provisions of this Act shall be void and inoperative. Provided that the grants may for the purpose of incurring a loan for reclamation, cultivation or improvement of the land, mortgage the same with the State Government or any Co-operative Society subject to such loan being recoverable as arrears of land revenue.” (Underlined for emphasis) 29.The case of opposite party No.8 is that Jyotiprakash Mishra and Smt. Manjushree Mishra to whom the Bhoodan land had been allotted has given licence to construct mobile tower in their land. Grant of licence by the allottee/grantee of Bhoodan Land in favour of opposite party No.8 is not covered under Rule 13(4) of the Rules, 1972. Further they have got “No Objection Certificate” from the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti and the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality to construct such tower. In any event, if opposite party No.8 found to be unauthorized occupation of the Bhoodan land, the Tahasildar having jurisdiction on an application by the Samiti or person if any, to whom land has been granted by the Samiti shall, require the unauthorized occupant to evict from the land and deliver possession thereof. 30.The contention of opposite party No.8 is that Sri Jyotiprakash Mishra and Smt. Manjushree Mishra, the grantee/allottee of Bhoodan land have granted licence in its favour which is not covered under Rule 13(4) of the Rules, 1972. We are unable to accept such contention of opposite party No.8. On a plain reading of Rule 13(4) of the Rules, 1972, it is clear that all types of alienations by way of mortgage, sale, lease, exchange, gift, bequest or otherwise of lands granted under the provisions of this Act shall be void and inoperative. The expression “Otherwise” appearing in Rule 13(4) brings within its ambit alienation of Bhoodan land by way of granting licence. The Apex Court in Lila Vati Bai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 521 held that the Legislature, when used the words ‘or otherwise’ apparently intended to cover other cases which may not come within the meaning of the preceding clauses. Thus, the Legislature, intended to cover all possible cases of vacancy occurring due to any reasons whatsoever. The Apex Court in Lila Vati Bai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 521 held that the Legislature, when used the words ‘or otherwise’ apparently intended to cover other cases which may not come within the meaning of the preceding clauses. Thus, the Legislature, intended to cover all possible cases of vacancy occurring due to any reasons whatsoever. Hence, far from using those words ejusdem generis with the preceding clauses of the explanation the Legislature used those words in an all inclusive sense. 31.None of the authorities such as Bhoodan Yagna Samiti or the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality have taken note of Rule 13(4) of the Rules, 1972 before granting “no objection” certificates” under Annexure-G and H respectively. Therefore, since licence granted in favour of opposite party No.8 is void and inoperative, No Objection Certificate/Permission granted by Bhoodan Yagna Samiti and Executive Officer, Puri Municipality are non-est in the eye of law and that permission cannot validate the alienation which is void and inoperative in view of Rule 13(4) of the Rules, 1972. The legal maxim “sublato fundamento cedit opus” is applicable, meaning thereby in case foundation is removed, the superstructure falls. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, AIR 2000 SC 3243 , observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically. Non-compliance of mandatory requirements vitiates the proceedings. 32.It is settled law that when the action of the State or its instrumentalities is not at par with the rules or regulations and supported by the Statute, the Court must exercise its jurisdiction to declare such an act as illegal and invalid. In this regard, it would be necessary to refer to the decision of the apex Court in the case of Sirsi Municipality by its President, Sirsi v. Cecelia Kom Francis Tellis, AIR 1973 SC 855 , wherein the apex Court observed that the rules or the regulations framed by the Government under the Statute are binding on the authorities. Whenever any action of the authority is in violation of the provisions of the statute or the action is constitutionally illegal, it cannot be allowed to sustain in law. Whenever any action of the authority is in violation of the provisions of the statute or the action is constitutionally illegal, it cannot be allowed to sustain in law. Wherever the statutory provision is ignored by the authority, the Court cannot become a silent spectator to such an illegality and it becomes the solemn duty of the Court to deal with the person(s) violating the law with heavy hands. (See R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmaiah and another., AIR 1972 SC 1967 , Sultan Sadik v. Sanjay Raj Subba and others., AIR 2004 SC 1377 ) 33.In view of the above the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti, Puri and the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality are not justified to grant permission/No Objection Certificate to opposite party No.8 to install mobile transmission tower in Bhoodan Land. The permission/No Objection Certificate granted by the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti and the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality cannot confer any right in favour of opposite party No.8 to install mobile transmission tower in Bhoodan Land. Therefore, opposite party No.8 is directed to remove the mobile tower which has been constructed on the Bhoodan land in question within a period of twelve weeks from the date of this order. The Tahasildar, Puri is also directed to ensure that the mobile tower illegally constructed on the said land is removed as per the above directions to opposite party No.8. If it does not remove the tower within the time allowed herein, then immediately after expiry of the period granted to it, opposite party No.3-Collector, Puri shall dismantle the tower at the cost of opposite party No.8. 34.We hope and trust, the functionaries of Bhoodan Yagna Samiti, Puri and the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality and the Tahasildar, Puri should not act in any manner contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the Act, 1970 and the Rules 1972. 35.With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.