JUDGMENT : S. Manikumar, J. A resident of Naduvile Village, Vaikom P.O., Kottayam District, has filed the instant public interest writ petition, contending inter alia that installation of a mobile tower by M/s. Indus Towers Limited, Ernakulam, respondent No.3, in Survey No.77/15A-1-3 of Naduvile Village, Vaikom Taluk, Kottayam District, property owned by one Radhamaniamma, respondent No.4, would affect the daily life of general public; there is a school functioning adjacent to the property, where the mobile tower is proposed to be constructed; such mobile tower would emit radiation, which would be dangerous to the health of the local people; that there is already a mobile tower installed and managed by BSNL and, therefore, there is no need for an additional tower, representations dated 24.6.2019, Exhibit-P1, and Exhibit-P3 dated 27.06.2019 have not been responded and on the above averments, petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the Vaikom Municipality, represented by its Secretary, respondent No.1, and the District Collector, Kottayam, respondent No.2, to issue appropriate orders to M/s. Indus Towers Limited, Ernakulam, respondent No.3, to stop construction of the mobile tower in question. 2. He has also sought for a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to dispose of Exhibits-P1 and P3 representations dated 24.06.2019 and 27.06.2019 respectively, after conducting a local inspection and after hearing the petitioner and signatories to Exhibit-P1. 3. Record of proceedings shows that a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has issued periodical orders, which are extracted hereunder: Order dated 16.07.2019: “The learned Government Pleader Sri.Tek Chand would submit that the District Collector, Kottayam as the head of the District Telecom Committee has called for a report on the representation dated 27.6.2019 (Ext.P3) addressed by the petitioner on the mobile tower proposed to be installed by the third respondent on the property of Smt. Radhamaniamma (respondent No.4). As soon as the report is received, a speaking order will be passed on the representation, after affording hearing to all concerned. The Vaikom Municipality (respondent No.1) is represented by Smt. A. Sreekala, the learned Standing Counsel and she prays for time to obtain instruction on whether the building permit has been granted for the mobile tower proposed to be erected by M/S Indus Towers Limited (respondent No.3). The Vaikom Municipality (respondent No.1) is represented by Smt. A. Sreekala, the learned Standing Counsel and she prays for time to obtain instruction on whether the building permit has been granted for the mobile tower proposed to be erected by M/S Indus Towers Limited (respondent No.3). List the case on 2.8.2019.” Order dated 2.8.2019: “Representing the Vaikom Municipality (respondent No.1) Smt.A.Sreekala, the learned counsel submits that building permit was sanctioned on 10.5.2019, for the mobile tower proposed to be constructed by M/S Indus Towers Limited (respondent No.3), on the property of Smt.Radhamaniamma (respondent No.4). 2. In so far as the hearing by the District Telecom Committtee on the objection to the erection of the mobile tower, the learned Government Pleader Sri.Surin George Ipe submits that notice was issued to the objector and others. He prays for time to obtain further instruction. 3. The matter be posted accordingly, after three weeks. The petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit, if so advised. The Registry should connect the counter affidavit of the Municipality, with the case records.” Order dated 30.08.2019: “The learned Government Pleader Sri. V. Tekchand, on the basis of instructions, submits that the District Telecom Committee, which met on 5.8.2019 had afforded hearing to those who were opposing the construction of mobile telecommunication tower, constructed by the 3rd respondent and the District Medical officer is requested to furnish a report before decision is taken on the issue. The report of the Medical Officer is awaited, at present. Accordingly, he seeks for time to obtain further instructions. 2. In view of above, the matter be listed after four weeks, as prayed for.” 4. On this day, when the matter is taken up for further hearing, based on the order passed by the District Collector, Kottayam, respondent No.2, dated 31.10.2019, Mr.V.Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that permission has been granted to proceed with the construction. 5. Earlier, we directed Mr.Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel for M/s. Indus Towers Limited, Ernakulam, respondent No.3, to take notice, on instructions, submitted that as early as on 13.2.2019, Electro Magnetic Frequency (EMF) Certification for Radiation Compliance has been given by the Junior Telecom Officer (T), Kerala, Department of Telecommunications. 5. Earlier, we directed Mr.Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel for M/s. Indus Towers Limited, Ernakulam, respondent No.3, to take notice, on instructions, submitted that as early as on 13.2.2019, Electro Magnetic Frequency (EMF) Certification for Radiation Compliance has been given by the Junior Telecom Officer (T), Kerala, Department of Telecommunications. He also submitted that in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 11(3) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, Vaikom Municipality, Kottayam, respondent No.2, has granted permission to erect the tower in the nearest building No.4/132 in Survey No.77/15A-1-3 of Naduvile Village, Vaikom Taluk, Kottayam District, and that the said erection of tower permit is valid upto 8.5.2010, subject to the conditions. 6. Mr.Santhosh Mathew further submitted that Chapter XIX of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, deals with installation of towers. He also referred to several orders passed by this Court and the High Court of Madras, on the aspect of installation of mobile towers. Inviting the attention of this Court to the proceedings of the District Collector, Kottayam, Mr. Santhosh Mathew submitted that the public interest litigant was heard, in the proceedings, when permission was granted by the District Collector. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. Before adverting to the rival submissions, let us consider the decisions on the installation of mobile towers. “In M/s. Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (M/s.) v. C.I. of Police, Angamali Police Station reported in 2010 (2) KLT 762 , a Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court answered a reference which is thus: “Reference has been made by different Division Benches of this Court in view of the different views expressed at different points of time. As per the decision in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat, 2006 KHC 1492 : 2006 (4) KLT 695 : ILR 2006 (4) Ker. 357 : AIR 2007 Ker. 33 , it was held that the 'Radio Frequency' exposures from Mobile BTS are much less than from Radio, FM radio, Television transmissions and that the consensus of scientific community was that the radiation from Mobile Phone Base Station was far too low, to produce health hazards, if the people were kept away from direct access to the antenna and the over all evidence indicated that they were unlikely to pose a risk to health. Accordingly, the order passed by the concerned Grama Panchayat cancelling the 'permit' already given to erect the mobile tower because of the objection / apprehension as to the health problems raised by a group of people of the locality was set aside, simultaneously granting Police protection. In Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. C.I. of Police, 2008 (4) KHC 657 : 2008 (4) KLT 713 : ILR 2008 (4) Ker. 561, another Division Bench took a different view and held that the view expressed by the Bench in 'Reliance case' regarding radiation etc. was in the context of cancellation of the Permit granted by the Panchayat and that the intricacies of health hazards cannot be decided by the Police or by this Court; thus denying the relief of Police protection, making it clear that the petitioners were to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. Subsequently, yet another Division Bench as per the decision in Dishnet Wireless Ltd. v. Circle Inspector of Police, 2009 (1) KHC 781 held that, if the petitioner had obtained all necessary licence from the statutory authority for construction of the mobile tower, nobody else was entitled to cause any physical obstruction referring to the health grounds or otherwise, and accordingly, 'Police protection' was ordered for construction of the tower so long as the construction was being done with valid permit and in the absence of any statutory bar / prohibitory order. The divergent views as above were brought to the notice of the Bench of this Court when WP (C) No. 6433/2009 and connected cases were being considered, which led to the reference order dated 24/03/2009 (by Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. R. Raman and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. S. Gopinathan) seeking to clarify the following points: (1) Whether the construction of a Mobile Base Station by itself will give raise to a dispute of civil nature, merely for the reason that a section of the public apprehends that it may cause some health hazards and whether a larger question of this nature as to whether such Mobile Base Station could cause any health hazards could be decided in a petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. (2) If the petitioners have obtained licence in accordance with the relevant statute in force and when they start functioning of a Mobile Base Station, can anybody cause any physical obstruction to such work, without raising a dispute and seeking remedies available to them under law, and in case, any such physical obstructions is caused, is not the Police bound to act and whether in the absence, this Court could issue necessary directions to the Police. It is settled, that the 'rule of law should prevail' and nobody shall be permitted to take the law into hands. As observed herein before, no materials have been brought in, by any of respondents by way of counter affidavit, producing the requisite documents to draw an inference that there is a 'health hazard' or that there is violation of any of the statutory or other prescriptions. The line of thought expressed by the Bench as per the reference order dated 02/11/2009 that the Police does not have the power or jurisdiction to decide the health hazards and hence this Court also can't decide the same and that the party is to approach the Civil Court does not appear to be the correct approach. Of course, it is not a matter for the Police to decide whether there is any 'health hazards' or not and the duty of the Police is only to prevent the commission of cognizable offence and to meet the threat to the law and order situation. It may also not be correct to say that this Court does not have the power to consider the various aspects as to the alleged health hazards which according to the reference Court is surprisingly vested only with the Civil Court. Suffice to say, it is not a question of absence of jurisdiction, but a question of necessity for interference. The instance of any health hazards has to be established with reference to tangible materials and evidence has to be let in; for which, it could be said that the matter may require to be adjudicated before the Civil Court. But then, it is for the concerned party to plead and prove as to the specific threat to the health hazards with reference to reliable materials and also as to the alleged infringement of any statutory prescription or violation of the norms prescribed. But then, it is for the concerned party to plead and prove as to the specific threat to the health hazards with reference to reliable materials and also as to the alleged infringement of any statutory prescription or violation of the norms prescribed. It is not for the petitioners to prove a 'negative aspect' that there is no health hazard. When the petitioners have prima facie established their right to construct and operate the mobile transmission tower by obtaining all the required licences, it is for the objectors, if any, to prove infraction of their right, if any, and to show the dis entitlement of the petitioners to establish a mobile tower by resorting to the remedy of approaching the licensing authorities, or to approach the Civil Court or by establishing their right in the writ petition for police protection. If any such objection is found prima facie established, this Court can certainly decline to grant police protection or in case the respondent fails to prove their right by documentary evidence, could still reserve his right to approach the Civil Court, as the burden to prove any such infraction is on the objector who asserts any such right. That apart, the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in 'Reliance Case' that the scientific study and the materials brought to light as on date did not reveal any such health hazards still stands, as the said observation has not been successfully challenged and no material has been produced to arrive at a different finding. Points sought to be clarified as per the reference order dated 24/03/2009 in WP (C) 6433/2009 and connected cases are answered in the above background as follows: (1) The construction of a Mobile Base Station by itself will not give raise to a dispute purely of civil nature, to be relegated to a Civil Court, merely for the reason that a section of the public apprehends that it may cause some health hazards. Whether a larger question of this nature, as to whether such Mobile Base Station could cause any health hazard, could be decided in a petition filed under Art.226 of Constitution of India, there cannot be any legal bar to such a course in appropriate cases, where sufficient materials are provided as to the scientific studies and norms / guidelines prescribed by the Government / Licensing authorities in this regard; which situation is conspicuously absent in the instant cases. (2) If the petitioners have obtained all requisite licences / permits in accordance with the relevant statutes / orders / notifications in force and start construction / functioning of a Mobile Base Station, nobody can cause any physical obstruction to such work / operation, but it is open to them for raising a dispute and seek remedies available under the law. If the police is alerted as to the threat to the law and order situation and if there is any violation on the part of the Police to discharge the statutory duty in taking steps to prevent cognizable offence, a Writ of Mandamus is very much liable to be issued granting police protection. Points sought to clarified as per the reference dated 02/11/2009 in WP (C) Nos. 24384, 25157/2009 are answered as follows: (i) In view of the observation in paragraph 8 of Sadananda Bai's case, 2008 (3) KHC 76 : 2008 (3) KLT 542 : ILR 2008 (3) Ker. 137 and similar observations in paragraph 8 of Essar Telecom case, 2008 (4) KHC 657 : 2008 (4) KLT 713 : ILR 2008 (4) Ker. 561 holding that this Court is very much having the power to provide the remedy, in case of violation to discharge the duty by the Police, further reference doubting the power of this Court under Art.226 is quite unwarranted. In view of the law declared by this Court as stated in the forgoing paragraphs, the observations to the contrary in the above two decisions (Sadananda Bai's case and Essar Telecom case) are not correct or sustainable. (ii) Relegation to the Civil Court, in the event of forceful obstruction to the construction or energization of Mobile Phone Tower is not an effective alternate remedy and interference by this Court, granting 'Police protection', invoking the power and discretionary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is warranted to advance the course of justice.” 9. (ii) Relegation to the Civil Court, in the event of forceful obstruction to the construction or energization of Mobile Phone Tower is not an effective alternate remedy and interference by this Court, granting 'Police protection', invoking the power and discretionary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is warranted to advance the course of justice.” 9. In Cellular Operators Association of India and Others v. Justice I. S. Israni (Retired) and Others reported in (2015) 13 SCC 663, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered a case, regarding removal of mobile towers close to schools and other public hospitals/buildings, Office Memorandum dated 9.8.2012 issued by the Ministry of Environment and forests (Wildlife Division), Government of India and the communication dated 4.7.2012 of the Directorate, Secondary Education, Rajasthan. It is worthwhile to refer to paras 5 to 10 of the reported judgment in Cellular Operators Association of India and Others (supra), which read thus: “5. The Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests in its Office Memorandum dated 9-8-2012 has issued advisory to the Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments on the use of mobile towers to minimise their impact on wildlife including birds and bees, etc. The advisory also contains guidelines with respect to humans also. An Expert Committee to study the possible impact of communication towers on wildlife including birds and bees was constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India on 30-8-2010. The report of the Expert Committee has been submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests. On the basis of the said report, request has been made by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to the Departments concerned, State Governments, local bodies, user agencies and the public at large to take following actions: "Ministry of Environment and Forests 1. The electro magnetic radiations from the communication towers may have varying negative impacts on wildlife, especially birds and bees. Accordingly, the information on the impacts related to different forms of wildlife as well as humans, should be provided to the agencies concerned for regulating the norms for notification of standards for safe limits of EMR taking into consideration the impacts on living beings. State / local bodies 1. Accordingly, the information on the impacts related to different forms of wildlife as well as humans, should be provided to the agencies concerned for regulating the norms for notification of standards for safe limits of EMR taking into consideration the impacts on living beings. State / local bodies 1. Regular auditing and monitoring of EMR should be conducted in urban localities / educational / hospital / industrial / residential / recreational premises and especially around the protected areas (PAs) and ecologically sensitive areas were notified norms of the Department of Telecommunications. Problematic towers from EMR point of view should be got suitably relocated / removed. 2. Bold signs and messages on the dangers of cell phone towers and associated radiations are displayed in and around the structures of the towers. In addition to these signs, use of visual daytime markers in areas of high diurnal raptor or waterfowl movements, should also be promoted. 3. Before according permission for construction of towers, ecological impact assessment and review of installation sites will be essential in wildlife and / or ecologically important areas. The Forest Department should be consulted before installation of cell phone towers in and around PAs and zoos. State Environment and Forest Departments 1. Regular awareness drive with high level of visibility through all forms of media, and in regional languages should be undertaken by the State Governments and the Departments concerned to make people aware about various norms and standards with regard to cell phone towers and dangers of EMR from the same. Such notices should also be placed in all wildlife protected areas and zoos by the Forest Department. Department of Telecommunications 1. To prevent overlapping of high radiation fields, new towers should be permitted within a radius of one kilometre of the existing towers. Sharing of passive infrastructure if made mandatory for telecom service providers can minimise the need of having additional towers. If new towers must be built, these should be constructed with utmost care and precautions so as not to obstruct flight path of birds, and also not to increase the combined radiations from all towers in the area. 2. The location and frequencies of cell phone towers and other towers emitting EMR, should be made available in public domain. This can be at city / district / village level. 2. The location and frequencies of cell phone towers and other towers emitting EMR, should be made available in public domain. This can be at city / district / village level. Location - wise GIS mapping of all cell phone towers should be maintained which would, inter alia, help in monitoring the population of birds and bees in and around the mobile towers and also in and / or around wildlife protected areas. 3. There is an urgent need to refine the Indian standard on safe limits of exposure to EMR, keeping in view the available literature on impacts on various life forms. Till such time the Indian standards are reformed, a precautionary approach shall be preferred to minimise the exposure levels and adopt stricter norms possible, without compromising on optimum performance of the networks. All agencies concerned: 1. Security lighting for on - ground facilities should be minimized and as far as possible point downwards or be down shielded to avoid bird hits. 2. Any study conducted on impact of EMF radiation on wildlife needs to be shared with the Forest Department and the Department of Telecommunications to facilitate appropriate policy formulation." It is apparent from Para 1 of the advisory under the caption of "Ministry of Environment and Forests" that information on the impacts related to different forms of wildlife as well as humans, should be provided to the agencies concerned for regulating the norms for notification of standards for safe limits of EMR taking into consideration the impacts on living beings. Recommendation 1 made to State / local bodies emphasises that regular auditing and monitoring of EMR should be conducted in urban localities / educational / hospital / industrial / residential / recreational premises and especially around the protected areas and ecologically sensitive areas. Problematic towers from EMR point of view should be got suitably relocated / removed from such places. It has also been mentioned in Recommendation 2 made to the State / local bodies that bold signs and messages on the dangers of cell phone towers and associated radiations are displayed in and around the structures of the towers. In addition to these signs, use of visual daytime markers in areas of high diurnal raptor or waterfowl movements, should also be promoted. In addition to these signs, use of visual daytime markers in areas of high diurnal raptor or waterfowl movements, should also be promoted. Recommendation has been made to the Department of Telecommunications to the effect that to prevent overlapping of high radiation fields, new towers should not be permitted within a radius of one kilometre of the existing towers. 6. An Inter - ministerial Committee consisting of officers from the Department of Telecom, Indian Council of Medical Research, Ministry of Health, Department of Biotechnology and Ministry of Environment and Forests was constituted to examine the effect of EMF radiation from base stations and mobile phones. The said Committee has also, inter alia, recommended with respect to mobile base stations to impose restrictions on installation of mobile towers near high density residential areas, schools, playgrounds and hospitals. 7. It is submitted by Shri Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Shri Naveen Chawla and Shri Ravi Chirania that duty of finalising the norms with respect to mobile base stations is of the Committee constituted by the DoT and after finalisation of the Committee's recommendations, the guidelines shall be forwarded to all the State Governments. 8. There is ample material placed before this Court in the shape of advisory on use of mobile towers issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the report of the Inter - Ministerial Committee on EMF radiation. Besides that, communication dated 4- 7-2012 of Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan is also on record which has been issued on the basis of communications of the State Government dated 16-5-2012, 14-6-2012 and 22-6-2012 containing direction to the effect that from government and non - government schools, mobile towers should be removed at once and information be submitted to the Department within 15 days. Considering ill effects of radiation caused by mobile towers on the health of children, aforesaid decision has been taken by the State Government which has been reflected in the communication dated 4-7-2012. 9. The State Government has also constituted a committee on 21- 5-2012 which has also submitted its report to the State Government duly considering the recommendations made by the Inter - Ministerial Committee on EMF radiation constituted by the Government of India. The said committee has also recommended to the State Government that not only from schools, but from sports grounds, high density residential areas, etc. installation of mobile towers be prohibited. The said committee has also recommended to the State Government that not only from schools, but from sports grounds, high density residential areas, etc. installation of mobile towers be prohibited. However, as stated by the Advocate General, the State Government is in the process of finalising the bye - laws on the basis of the said recommendations. The fact remains that there is already an order issued by the State Government for removing mobile towers from the schools as reflected in the communication dated 4-7-2012 and it is apparent from overwhelming reports and material placed on record that it is not appropriate to have the mobile towers on the school buildings. We are not touching the other aspects as on today as the State Government is in the process of finalising the bye - laws on the basis of recommendations of the committee and the learned Advocate General has assured to place the same on record within a period of ten days. As assured, within a period of ten days decision be taken with respect to other aspects also, failing which, we may have to consider various aspects. 10. The learned Advocate General has also assured this Court to implement the decision dated 14-6-2012 and other decisions reflected in the letter dated 4-7-2012 to remove the mobile towers from school buildings. In fact, it was required to be done within a period of 15 days; the action was to be taken forthwith, in view of fact that radiation affects the children as they are of tender age. As assured, let the decision of the State Government for removal of towers from school buildings be implemented and compliance report be submitted within a period of 15 days in this Court.” 10. In Indus Towers v. Sub Inspector of Police, reported in 2014 (4) KHC 81 , a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, on the aspect of police protection for putting up a mobile telecommunication tower, held as under: “27. Therefore, when an effective procedure has been provided for the purpose of resolving all issues relating to installation or energising of MT Towers, before coming to this Court, seeking police assistance, the petitioners will have to exhaust such remedies. 28. Therefore, when an effective procedure has been provided for the purpose of resolving all issues relating to installation or energising of MT Towers, before coming to this Court, seeking police assistance, the petitioners will have to exhaust such remedies. 28. In regard to WP (C) No. 6675/2014, the claim of the petitioner is that no permission had been obtained by the agency installing MT Tower from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. Apparently, no materials are produced to indicate that any such permission is required. That apart, as already indicated, if he has any grievance, the same can be taken up before DTC. 29. In WP (C) No. 3297/2014, yet another contention urged by the party respondent is that BSNL has not obtained necessary building permit. The petitioner has relied upon a circular issued by the Government on 30/10/2010 indicating that since BSNL is under the complete ownership of Central Government, it is not necessary to get permission to construct a mobile tower as per R.130 of the KMBR. In the light of the aforesaid circular, it is not open for the party respondent to take a contention that BSNL is required to take necessary building permit as contemplated under KMBR. In the result, these writ petitions are disposed of as under: (i) If the DTC or STC has not been constituted by the Government, necessary steps in that regard shall be made and DTC and STC shall be constituted within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (ii) Petitioners in these cases are permitted to approach the DTC for redressing their grievances and on submission of such representations/applications, the DTC shall consider the same, after notice to the affected parties and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible in accordance with the procedure prescribed.” 11. A Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court in K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy Vs. The Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, New Delhi W.P. Nos.24977 of 2018 and other connected cases) considered a similar issue of erection of mobile towers, on the contention that the emission from mobile towers causes health hazards. A Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court in K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy Vs. The Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, New Delhi W.P. Nos.24977 of 2018 and other connected cases) considered a similar issue of erection of mobile towers, on the contention that the emission from mobile towers causes health hazards. After considering the decision of the Kerala High Court in Reliance Infocomm Ltd. v. The Sub Inspector of Police, Koyilandy, Kozhikode and Others [W.P.(C) No.16724 of 2006(N)], a Hon'ble Division Bench considered the rival contentions and ordered thus: ''To be or not to be'' or rather ''to have mobile phone towers or not to have mobile phone towers'', is the question ! 2. Petitioners seek regulations qua where the mobile phone towers should be installed on account of ill-effects of technology on human beings. But, none of the petitioners have any conclusive material to show such ill-effects of radiation from the mobile phone towers. The apprehension arises on account of what is stated to be the different studies to the effect that the existence of mobile phone towers may possibly amount to health hazards. The moot point is, though, whether there are actually any health hazard on account of mobile phone towers, and if so, what are the precautions necessary. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BSNL has pointed out to us the Division Bench judgment of the Kerala High. Court in W.P.(C) No.16724 of 2006(N) [Reliance Infocomm Ltd. v. The Sub Inspector of Police, Koyilandy, Kozhikode and others), decided on 12.10.2006. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court noted that the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in W.P.No.2112 of 2004, directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India to conduct a scientific study on the issue of health hazards for persons residing near the mobile phone stations, as it was said to be exposing human beings living within the magnetic field to fatal deceases like cancer, embryo, disruption and changes in DNA structure. A Committee was, thus, constituted under the Chairmanship of Dr.N.K.Ganguly, DG ICMR, which gave its opinion. Suffice to say, the Committee recommended that a precautionary approach should be adopted till further research data is available, as there was not enough evidence to show any direct health hazards of RF exposure from mobile base stations. A Committee was, thus, constituted under the Chairmanship of Dr.N.K.Ganguly, DG ICMR, which gave its opinion. Suffice to say, the Committee recommended that a precautionary approach should be adopted till further research data is available, as there was not enough evidence to show any direct health hazards of RF exposure from mobile base stations. The relevant observations made by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court, while dealing with the report, are as under:- ''The Committee on the basis of the above findings recommended that a precautionary approach should be adopted till further research data is available. Further it was also opined that it will not be amiss to adopt the ICNIRP guidelines for limiting EMF Exposure. Committee also reported that the protocols to be allowed and necessary guidelines for siting of mobile phone base stations may need to be developed as per its applicability for India. Further it was also recommended that periodic review of the status of knowledge in this area should be done and the recommendations may be revised accordingly. Committee however, opined that there is not enough evidence to show any direct health hazards of RF exposure from Mobile Base Stations. Recognizing that, committee has however opined, that data be generated through appropriate epidemiological studies (covering urban/rural population & varied exposure levels) and appropriate funds should be made available to the Institutions conducting these studies.'' 5. The aforesaid report was made available to the counsel for the parties by the Kerala High Court. In fact, on analysis, it was found that radiation from the mobile base station is less as compared to that of AM Radio and FM Radio. The frequency waves used for mobile phones was found not covered under the definition of radiation as given in the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. The Radiation Protection Division of the U.K. Health Protection Agency in the year 2000, is stated to have reported that the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of the people living near the base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines. 6. The Radiation Protection Division of the U.K. Health Protection Agency in the year 2000, is stated to have reported that the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of the people living near the base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines. 6. The Division Bench also took note of the views expressed by the Delhi High Court in O.S.No.1121 of 2002 wherein, it was opined that there is neither any conclusive research nor authoritative scientific evidence to show that the radiations emitted by such transmission towers are dangerous to the health of human beings. 7. The Kerala High Court also rightly took the view that mobile base stations are essential for transmitting the receiving signals installed and maintained by all telecom service providers. There is no technology available to operate mobile phones without these towers. The findings given in paragraph 5 of the Kerala High Court judgment, is as under:- ''5.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. The strength of radio frequency fields in front of the antennae varies with the distance. Persons standing directly in front of the antennae in these high density zones will get higher exposures. We have also found that the height of Mobile Base Station antennae is normally 36 meters and the effect of radio waves depends on the distance from the base stations since the antennae are directed horizontally with a 5 degree downwards tilt. Human studies pertaining to base stations conducted by Santini R et al (2002), Bortkiewicz et al (2004) & Hutter & kundi et al (2006) do not report any quantitative parameters related to health hazards. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the permission granted for installation of Mobile Base Station by the Panchayat would not cause as such any health hazards nor will it affect the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the permission granted for installation of Mobile Base Station by the Panchayat would not cause as such any health hazards nor will it affect the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution. Right to life enshrined under Article 21 includes all those aspects of life which make life meaningful, complex and worth living. Development of technology has its own ill-efects on human beings, but, at times people will have to put up with that at the cost of their advantages. Petitioner and others for installing towers will have necessarily to comply with the statutory provisions contained in Chapter XIX of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 1999 which permits construction of telecommunication towers over buildings. Petitioner has submitted that it has already satisfied all those conditions and in such circumstance Panchayat has granted the licence.'' 8. In so far as regulation of Roof Top Towers for Cellular Mobile Systems are concerned, the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, has circulated GR No.GR/TWR-09/01 FEB 2004. Thus, the technical body has taken care of the technical aspects by providing necessary requirements. It is orally stated before us that the Government India has constituted Inter Ministerial Committee to analyse this issue. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.(MD) Nos.16907 to 16909 of 2012 has also referred to the report of the Departmental Committee of BTS towers, which contains recommendations. The Departmental Committee report is dated 30.3.2012. This, actually, thus, succeeds GR No.GR/TWR-09/01 FEB 2004 issued by the Department of Telecommunications, referred to above by us. In fact, it enforces the health aspects of the concerned authorities and thus, periodically reviewing the matter depending upon the evidentiary material available for and against the health aspects qua these towers. 10. We are, thus, of the view that in a judicial proceeding these aspects cannot be analysed. There being no materials atleast as on date, which can finally suggest any health hazards from these towers and the solution thereof, the Court would not venture into unchartered territory of technical expertise to determine the area 10 where it should be installed. The Court, at best can place this matter before the appropriate Committee to look into this matter which the Kerala High Court already did and we have the benefit of the conclusion arrived at in those proceedings, as noticed above. 11. The Court, at best can place this matter before the appropriate Committee to look into this matter which the Kerala High Court already did and we have the benefit of the conclusion arrived at in those proceedings, as noticed above. 11. We are of the view that no further directions are required in these matters, other than to say that the concerned authorities would continue to analyse the materials as and when it emerges to look into the concern raised by the petitioners, especially, in view of the fact that there is no final view as yet on these aspects. Science grows and evolves and one does not know what may happen tomorrow. It is, in this context, we have made these observations. 12. Writ petitions and the writ appeal, accordingly, stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, all connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.” 12. A Hon'ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court in N.Venkatachalam Vs. District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Namakkal District (W.P. No.25094 of 2019), after considering various Government orders issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Telecommunication, New Delhi, ordered thus: “Alleging that the 3rd respondent viz., Mrs.Krishnaveni, has entered into an agreement with M/s. American Tower Corporation of India, Chennai, the 2nd respondent herein, for building and operating a cell phone tower at her residential Plot No.9 in Survey No.190/2B, one Mr.N.Venkatachalam, petitioner, has filed the instant public interest writ petition to forbear the District Collector, Namakkal District, the 1st respondent from granting permission to build the proposed phone tower by the 2nd respondent in S.No.190/2B, Plot No.9, Vettambadi Village, Kosavampatti, Namakkal District and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to build and operate this proposed cell phone tower to a suitable location where buildings are not concentrated or in a remote location. 2. Opposing the erection of cell phone tower, petitioner and other residents of Chettiyar Street, Veetampadi Village, seemed to have sent representations to the District Collector, Namakkal and District Superintendent of Police, Namakkal District on 22.07.2019. Said representation reads as under: “Sir, Sub: Requesting to issue a ban order -; Cell Phone tower erection in the residential area -; Regarding. We are the residents of Veetampadi Village, near Ninayagar temple in Chettiyar Street. We are having residential buildings and vacant lands. Said representation reads as under: “Sir, Sub: Requesting to issue a ban order -; Cell Phone tower erection in the residential area -; Regarding. We are the residents of Veetampadi Village, near Ninayagar temple in Chettiyar Street. We are having residential buildings and vacant lands. In the said Chettiyar Street, Veetampadi Village, S.No.190/2, divided into 31 residential plots. It's all designated for residential purpose. In the said residential plots, Plot No.9 and 10 was purchased by one Mr.Srinivasan, S/o.Nagaraju, residing at 1/171, Chettiyar Street, Kosavampatti Post, Namakkal. In this P.No.9, a residential building was built and he is residing there, whereas, P.No.10 remaining vacant. Around this Plot No.10 we are about 70 families residing. The said P.No.10 owner made an agreement with a Cell phone Tower Company to erect a cell phone tower in the said Plot No.10. If the Cell Phone Tower erected in the said Plot No.10, it would cause high frequency waves, transmission through the installed antennas. If the radiation energy exceeds a certain limits it would cause dangerous health hazards to the neighbors those who are residing in the adjacent area of the proposed Cell Phone Tower. We came to know from certain Research Journals, the radiation from Cell Phone Tower likely to cause head-ache , vision defectiveness, Lungs, heard diseases and cancer etc. Those who are residing adjacent to Cell Phone Tower are also expressing their ailments. In the event of any power failure, the stand by Generator set will start automatically and will remain in service till resumption of power; during its operation in will exhaust unburnt fuel along with Carbon di-;oxide and carbon monoxide which may cause environmental problems and breathing problems to the children as well as to very elderly people. Within 4 km radius of a Cell Phone Tower, the chances of affecting the children by Leukemia a type of cancer would be high. In addition, if there is any 'Vis major' the resultant damage to the people and buildings would be quite high. Further, in order to erect a Cell Phone Tower a 20 feet deeper excavation would be carried out which is likely to cause some damage to the adjacent buildings. In addition, if there is any 'Vis major' the resultant damage to the people and buildings would be quite high. Further, in order to erect a Cell Phone Tower a 20 feet deeper excavation would be carried out which is likely to cause some damage to the adjacent buildings. Hence we all informed to the P.No.10 owner not to erect this Cell Phone Tower in the said area but all resulted in vein, more over he become very adamant and he informed us that he is not ready to listen any of us. With the help of JCB equipments Cell Phone Tower erection work commenced, but with the intervention of elderly people the work suspended. The P.10 owner threatened us that he would commence the work with the help of police. We all requesting you to take some concrete steps and stop building this Cell Phone Tower in this site and ensure safe and healthy life to us.” 3. As there was no response, petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for the relief stated supra. 4. Mr.Akhil Akbarali, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the District Collector, Namakkal District, the 1st respondent. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Earlier, when a similar issue came up for hearing, this Court vide common order in WP Nos.7544 of 2017 and 15144 of 2019 dated 22.08.2019, observed as under: 6. Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.2, Information Technology Department, dated 1/4/2002, regarding installation of Base Transreceiver Station Towers (BTS Towers). Under the said G.O., Government have accorded permission to any licenced telecom Company, which is committed to the cause of Government of Tamil Nadu, to install its Base Stations, consisting of Tower, Equipment room and generator room, on roof top or on the ground of premises and buildings belonging to Government of Tamil Nadu, subject to the availability and technical feasibility, on a non-;exclusive basis and also subject to certain terms and conditions. 7. The entire G.O., is extracted hereunder: ABSTRACT Information Technology; Setting up of Base Transreceiver Station lowers and installation of equipment for telecommunication: networks; Leasing of space in government offices on a non exclusive basis to any licenced telecom company on certain prescribed terms and conditions ? Orders Issued. ----- INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms.No.2 Dated: 1-04-2002 (1) G.O.Ms.No.7, Information Technology department, dated 12.02.2001. Orders Issued. ----- INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms.No.2 Dated: 1-04-2002 (1) G.O.Ms.No.7, Information Technology department, dated 12.02.2001. (2) From Tvl Reliance Infocom Limited, Chennai, letter Ref.No.2375/IT/2001-02, dated 29.1.2002. ORDER: In the G.O first read above, consolidated policy guidelines were issued specifying terms and conditions for the grant of centralised permission for the use ?of public right of wav by any private or public sector applicant that proposes to lay optic fibre cables in the National and State Highways and other roads in Tamil Nadu. 2. Tvl. Reliance Infocom Limited, who have been given centralised permission to lay optic fibre cables in Tamil Nadu, have indicated that in order to maximise the coverage throughout the State, permission is required for renting / leasing out Government land / Government buildings for putting up Base Transreceiver Station Towers (BTS Towers) at technically feasible locations. The company has also requested the Government to grant exemption to it from observing side set back rules of Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority / Directorate of Town and Country Planning for the BTS towers which are only temporary structures and to apply the rules only in the cases of construction of buildings for BTS equipment room, Diesel Generator Set room etc. 3. The Government after careful consideration and detailed examination, have decided to issue general permission to any licenced telecom company providing infocom services to the end users, on a non exclusive basis subject to certain terms and conditions. 4. Accordingly, the Government hereby accord permission to any licenced telecom company and which is committed to the cause of Government of Tamil Nadu to install its Base Stations consisting of Tower equipment room and generator room, on roof top or on the ground of premises and buildings belonging to Government of Tamil Nadu, subject to availability and technical feasibility on a non exclusive basis and also subject to the following terms and conditions. (i) Permission for installing lowers, equipment and generator etc., on case to case basis will be issued by the district Collectors concerned in consultation with the district is concerned, (ii) Availability of space of 4.5 Mts x 4,5 Mts. (iii) Technical feasibility -; Building should be structurally strong to take a load of 3.5 MT to 6.0 MT depending on the height of tower. (iv) A . (iii) Technical feasibility -; Building should be structurally strong to take a load of 3.5 MT to 6.0 MT depending on the height of tower. (iv) A . Telecom company providing infocom services and is desirous of utilising the Government premises / buildings for installing the base stations, should comply with all the regulations and stipulations including that of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, in installation of the Base stations. All clearances / permissions, required in the process of establishing the base stations are to be obtained by such company. (v) Permission may be given on non-exclusive basis. (vi) The future extension / expansion of building /premises may be kept in mind, (vii) Permission may be granted initially for a period of 10 (ten) years. (viii) Damages caused, if any, shall be rectified by such company and bring back to original condition and to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. (ix) Leasing of the premises or buildings to such company should not be detrimental to the daily routine and activities of the Office or Offices concerned. (x) Appropriate rent shall be charged from such company. (xi) Exemption shall be given to the telecom companies from side set back rules of Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority / Directorate of Town and Country Planning for the BTS Towers and the said rules shall be applicable only to the construction of buildings. 5. This order issues with the concurrence of Housing & Urban development, Revenue and Public Works departments. (BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) VTVEK HARINARAIN SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT” 8. A perusal of the said G.O., makes it clear that the said G.O., is applicable only to those buildings which belong to Government of Tamil Nadu. Thereafter, the Government came out with another G.O.Ms.No.302, Housing and Urban Development (UD 4.2) Department, dated 12/12/2012. Under the said G.O., Information Technology Department has clarified that exemption given in G.O. (Ms).No.2, dated 1/4/2002, quoted supra, will be applicable not only for the Base Trans-;receiver Station Towers to be installed on roof top or on the ground of premises and buildings belonging to Government of Tamil Nadu, but also for the Base Trans Receiver Station Towers to be installed on private land/buildings. The said G.O., reads as under. ABSTRACT Urban Development -; Installation of the Base Transreceiver Station Towers in all the land use zones in the Master plan -; Permission -; orders ? issued. The said G.O., reads as under. ABSTRACT Urban Development -; Installation of the Base Transreceiver Station Towers in all the land use zones in the Master plan -; Permission -; orders ? issued. Housing and Urban Development (UD 4.2) Department G.O.(Ms).No.302 Dated: 12.12.2002 1.G.O.(Ms).NO.1730, Rural Development and Local Administration Department, dated 24.07.1974 2. G.O.Ms.No.2, Information and Technology Department, dated 1.4.2002 3. Government Lr.No.237/I&T/2002/2, Information Technology Dept., dated 09.05.2002. 4. From the Special Commissioner of Town and Country Planning, Lr.Roc.No.13287/2002/BA1, dated 03.06.2002 and 17.07.2002. 5. Government Lr.No.237/IT/2002/2 Information Technology Department dated 18.09.2002. ORDER: In the Government Order second read above, the Information Technology Department had issued orders permitting any licenced telecom company to install Base Transreceiver Station Towers, equipment room and generator room on roof top or on the ground of premises and building belonging to Government on certain terms and conditions. Orders were also issued by the Government that exemption shall be given to such telecom companies from following the side set back rules of Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority / Director of Town and Country Planning for installation of Base Transreceiver station Towers and applicability of the said rules only to the construction of buildings. 2. Subsequently, in the Government letter third read above, the Information Technology Department has further clarified that the exemption given in G.O.(Ms.).No.2, dated 01.04.2002 will be applicable not only for the Base Transreceiver Station Towers to be installed on roof top or on the ground of premises and buildings belonging to Government of Tamilnadu but also for the Base Trans receiver Station Towers to be installed on private land / buildings. 3. In the letter fifth read above, the Information Technology Department while issuing certain amendments to paras 4 and 5 of Government Order second read above has directed Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and Rural Development Department to issue necessary orders exempting under Tamilnadu District Municipalities Building Rules and Multistoreyed and Public Building Rules 1973; under G.O.164, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 15.06.94 and G.O.(Ms.)No.22, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 30.01.97 against restricting the height of the Buildings / structures / Base Trans Receiver Station Towers within the Heritage Zone of the Heritage Towns and under G.O.(Ms.)No.1730, Rural Development and Local Administration Department dated 24.07.74 allowing the Base Trans Receiver Station Towers in all the land use Zones. 4. 4. As regards the issue of allowing the Base Trans Receiver Station Towers in all the land use zones, the Special Commissioner of Town and Country Planning in his letter fourth read above has reported that as per the Government Order first read above only permissible uses specified in each use zone as per the Master Plan can be permitted. He has requested that since there is no provision at present in the Master Plan for permitting the Base Trans receiver Station towers, a separate Government Order for permitting Base Trans Receiver Station Towers in all land use zone in the master plan may be issued by the Government. 5. The Government after careful examination accept the proposal of the Special Commissioner of Town and Country Planning and accordingly direct that the installation of Base Trans receiver station Towers shall be permitted in all the land use zones in the master plan. (BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) 9. Thereafter, Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.177 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAI) Department, dated 17/12/2002. In the said G.O., it is noticed that the Special Commissioner of Town and Country Planning, Chennai, sought clarification from the Government on the exemption of BTS Towers constructed by Telecom Companies from the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules, 1972 and Multistoreyed and Public Building Rules, 1973, in respect of heritage towns, subject to the condition imposed in G.O.Ms.No.2, Information Technology Department, dated 1/4/2002 and Government letter No.237/IT/2002-;7 IT Department, dated 18/9/2002. The said G.O., reads as under. Information Technology -; Installation of Base Transreceiver Station Towers by Telecommunication Companies -; Exemption under Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules 1972 and Multistoried and Public Building Rules, 1973, Orders Issued. MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & WATER SUPPLY (MAI) DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms.No.177 Dated: 17/12/2002 1. G.O.Ms.No.2, Information Technology Department, dated 1.4.2002 2. From the Special Commissioner of Town and Country Planning, Lr.Roc. 13287/ 2002/BA1, dt 30.5.2002 3. From the Director of Municipal Administration, Lr.Roc.43829/2002/TP3 dt.23.7.2002 4. MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & WATER SUPPLY (MAI) DEPARTMENT G.O.Ms.No.177 Dated: 17/12/2002 1. G.O.Ms.No.2, Information Technology Department, dated 1.4.2002 2. From the Special Commissioner of Town and Country Planning, Lr.Roc. 13287/ 2002/BA1, dt 30.5.2002 3. From the Director of Municipal Administration, Lr.Roc.43829/2002/TP3 dt.23.7.2002 4. Government Lr.No.237/IT/2002/7 IT Dept., dt.18.9.2002 ORDER In G.O. first read above, as amended in Government letter fourth read above, Government have accorded permission to licensed telecom companies to install Base Trans receiver Station Towers, equipment room and generator room on rooftop or on the ground of premises and buildings belonging to Government of Tamil Nadu / Quasi Government / Public Sector Undertaking / Local Bodies / Private Lands and Buildings subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned therein. 2. The Special Commissioner of Town and Country Planning sought the clarification of Government on the exemption of BTS towers from Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules and Multistoreyed and Public Building Rules, 1973 and height restriction in respect of heritage towns. The Director of Municipal Administration has also requested the Government to issued necessary orders in this regard. 3. The Government after careful examination grant exemption to BTS Towers constructed by Telecom Companies, from the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules 1972 and Multistoreyed and Public Building Rules, 1973, subject to the conditions imposed in the G.O. and letter first and fourth read above. However, the exemption granted above is subject to the height restrictions in hentage towns ordered in respect of the Madurai Corporation in G.O. (Ms).No.164, MA&WS, dt. 16.6.1994 and in respect of other heritage towns in G.O. (Ms).No.22, MA&WS, dt. 30.1.1997. (By order of the Governor) L.N.VIJAYARAGAVAN, Secretary to Government 10. Energy (C3) Department, Secretariat, Chennai, vide letter No.5742/C3/2008-;6, dated 26/3/2009, has stated as under. 2. In this connection, I am to state that orders have already been issued in G.O.Ms.No.177, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 17/12/2002, granting exemption to the Base Trans Receiver Station Towers constructed by Telecom Companies from the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules, 1972 and Multi storeyed and Public Building Rules, 1973 and in G.O.Ms.No.302, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 12/12/2002. The Government directed that the installation of Base Trans Receiver Station towers shall be permitted in all the land use zones in the master plan. 3. The Government directed that the installation of Base Trans Receiver Station towers shall be permitted in all the land use zones in the master plan. 3. In this connection, I am to state that the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, and Rural Development ad Panchayat Raj Departments have since been instructed to issue necessary instruction to the Corporation/Municipalities/Local Bodies not to insist upon building permission from the cell phone companies for erection of Base Trans Receiver Station towers in view of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.177, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 17/12/2002 and in G.O.Ms.No.302 Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 12/12/2002. I am therefore, to request you to follow the instructions to be issued by the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department/Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Departments, in this matter and also send an action taken report to the Government.? 11. The position which emerges till now is that permission has to be obtained from the authorities under G.O.Ms.No.177, Municipal Administration & Water Supply (MAI) Department, dated 17/12/2002, which relies on G.O.Ms.No.2, Information Technology Department, dated 1/4/2002. G.O.Ms.No.302, Housing and Urban Development (UD 4.2) Department, dated 21/12/2002, makes G.O.Ms.No.2, Information Technology Department, dated 1/4/2002, to be applicable to private buildings also. Department of Telecommunications has issued guidelines, dated 1/6/2013, for issuance of clearance for installation of mobile towers, and the same reads as under. A. Documents to be submitted by Telecom Service Providers/Infrastructure Providers: 1. Copy of Access Service License/Infrastructure Provider Registration Certificate from Department of Telecommunications. 2. Copy of Standing Advisory Committee for Frequency Allocation (SACFA) clearance for the said location issued by Wireless Planning Commission (WPC) Wing of Department of Telecom. [Telecom Enforcement, Resource and Monitoring (TERM) cells certification for installation of towers as getting clearance from SACA takes little long time.] 3. Other clearance at State/Local authority level: (i). Copy of the type test certificate issued by Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) to the manufacturers of the Diesel Generator (DG) Sets [The DG sets used shall be as per the provisions under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 & noise pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000, as amended from time to time]. (ii). Copy of clearance from Fire Safety Department only in case for high rise buildings where Fire Clearance is mandatory. (iii). For forest protected areas, the copy of clearance from State Environment & Forest Department, if applicable. (iv). (ii). Copy of clearance from Fire Safety Department only in case for high rise buildings where Fire Clearance is mandatory. (iii). For forest protected areas, the copy of clearance from State Environment & Forest Department, if applicable. (iv). Copy of No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Building owner. B. Base Trans-;receiver Stations (BTS) Tower Details: 1. Data Sheet a. Name of Service/Infrastructure Provider b. Location c. Tower Reference: (i). Height (ii). Weight (iii). Ground/Roof Top (IV). Number of antennas planned on tower, 2. Copy of structural stability certificate of foundation for ground based BTS. Or In case of roof top BTS towers, structural stability certificate for the building based on written approvals of any authorised Structural Engineer of State/local bodies/Central Building Research Institute (CBRI), Roorkee/IIT/NIT or any other agency authorised by local body. c. Safety/Precautionary Provisions (Relevant to TERM Cell Unit Verification): (i). In case of both ground based towers & roof top towers, there shall be no nearby buildings right in front of the antenna with height comparable to the lowest antenna on tower at a distance threshold as specified below: Number of Multiple antennas in the same direction Building/structure distance from the antenna (Safe distance in meters) 1 20 2 35 3 45 6 55 Alternatively, operators need to establish/certify that all General public areas area within safe EMF exposure limits as per actual peak traffic measurements after the antennas start radiating. (ii). Wall Mounted/Police mounted Antenna: a. The antenna mounted on pole should be at least 5 metre above ground level/road level on flyovers. b. No residential/office/work place is directly in front of the wall/pole antenna at a height comparable to the antenna as per para c (ii) above. (Note: Calculation of safe distance based on maximum 20 watt RF power radiated from the antenna). D. Points relevant to State/Local Administrative Authorities (i). Nominal one time Administrative fee as may be decided by the State Government to recover its costs on the issue of permission for installation of tower. (ii). Telecom towers have been given infrastructure status by Government of India vide Gazette Notification No.81 dated 28/3/2012. All benefits, as applicable to infrastructure industry, should be extended. Electricity connection may be provided to BTS site on priority. (iii). Formation of State and District Telecom Committees: Keeping public interest in view, there is a need of regular interactions between TERM cell of DOT and State/District administration under District Collector. All benefits, as applicable to infrastructure industry, should be extended. Electricity connection may be provided to BTS site on priority. (iii). Formation of State and District Telecom Committees: Keeping public interest in view, there is a need of regular interactions between TERM cell of DOT and State/District administration under District Collector. Hence it is proposed to set up State and District Telecom Committees for review of all Telecom Infrastructure related issues at State/District Level consisting of Officers from TERM Cells, State/District Administration and the concerned Telecom Service Providers. (iv). Telecom installations are lifeline installations and a critical infrastructure in mobile communication. In order to avoid disruption in mobile communication, an essential service, sealing of BTS towers/disconnection of electricity may not be resorted without the consent of the respective TERM Cell of DoT. (v). All radiation related technical details are dealt with by TERM cells of DOT. (vi). Single Window Clearance may be provided in a time bound manner to telecom service provider/infrastructure provider by the local body/State Government. This will ensure issuance of faster clearances. (vii). Telecom infrastructure/installation of tower may be permitted for all locations irrespective of land usage. (viii). Public awareness programme may be conducted regularly by involving concerned TERM Cells & Telecom Service Providers. 12. Department of Telecommunications, dated 1/8/2013, has also issued Advisory Guidelines, to the State Government, for issuance of clearance of mobile towers and the same reads as under. 1. The Indian telecom sector has witnessed phenomenal growth and mobile telephony in particular has revolutionized in the Country over the past decade. Providing telephone coverage across the country has been one of DOTs top priority areas. Out of 921 million connections, 891 million are wireless, as on May 2013. The popularity of cell phone and wireless communication devices has resulted in a proliferation of cell towers across the country. 2. Fixation of standards for exposure limits of radio frequency field emissions from mobile base stations, monitoring their compliance, all radiation related technical issues, issues of Access Service Licence/Infrastructure Provider registration and SACFA clearance for frequency allocation at any location are dealt with by DOT. 3. India has adopted strict limit for radiation from Base Transceiver Station (BTS), as below, which is 1/10th of the International norms (ICNIRP): Frequency in MHZ Power density limit 900 0.45 watt/m 1800 0.9 watt/m 2100 and above 1 watt/m 4. 3. India has adopted strict limit for radiation from Base Transceiver Station (BTS), as below, which is 1/10th of the International norms (ICNIRP): Frequency in MHZ Power density limit 900 0.45 watt/m 1800 0.9 watt/m 2100 and above 1 watt/m 4. Broad guidelines for issue of clearance for installation of mobile phone towers were issued on 23/8/2012 and later modified on 26/3/2013. Subsequently, on the basis of feedback received after deliberations made with the State Government officials and various stake holders on 16/4/2013 and holding further consultations thereafter, the guidelines have been finalized for the State Governments. These are detailed in A and B below. These guidelines are issued in supersession of all earlier guidelines on the subject. A. Documents to be submitted by Telecom Service Providers/Infrastructure Providers for obtaining clearance from local bodies/State Governments for installation of mobile towers: I. Copy of relevant license/Infrastructure Provider Registration Certificate from Department of Telecommunications. II. Data Sheet a. Name of Service/Infrastructure Provider b. Location C. Tower Reference: (i). Height (ii) weight (iii). Ground/Roof top (iv). Pole/wall mounted (v). number of antennae III. Copy of SACFA Clearance/copy of SACFA application for the said location submitted to WPC Wing of DOT with registration number as WPC acknowledgment along with undertaking that in case of any objection/rejection, TSPs/IPs will take corrective actions/remove the tower. (IV). Copy of structural stability certificate for ground based tower. In case of roof top BTS towers, structural stability certificate for the building and tower based on written approvals of any authorised structural engineer of State/local bodies/Central building Research Institute (CBRI), Roorkee/IIT/NIT or any other agency authorised by local body. (V). Copy of the type set certificate issued by Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) to the manufacturers of the Diesel Generator (DG) sets. (VI). Copy of clearance from Fire Safety Department only in case for high rise buildings where Fire Clearance is mandatory. (VII). The local bodies may also seek submission of the copy of No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Building Owner/entities having roof top rights or roof top tenants in case of roof based tower/land owner in case of ground based tower, as the case may be. As per their rules in force, State Governments, at their discretion, may seek fresh NOC at the time of renewal of site (tenancy) contract for mobile tower. (IX). As per their rules in force, State Governments, at their discretion, may seek fresh NOC at the time of renewal of site (tenancy) contract for mobile tower. (IX). Acknowledgment receipt issued by TERM Cells (DOT) of the self-;certificate submitted by Telecom Service Provider/Infrastructure Provider in respect of mobile tower/BTS (Ground based/roof top/pole/wall mounted) in the format as prescribed by TEC, DOT, establishing/certifying that all General public areas around the tower will be within safe EMR exposure limit as per peak traffic measurement after the antennae starts radiating. B. Action by State Government/local body. I. Nominal one time Administrative fee as may be decided by the State Government to recover its costs on the issue of permission for installation of tower. II. Single Window Clearance may be provided in a time bound manner to telecom service provider/infrastructure provider by the local body/State Government. This will ensure issuance of faster clearances. III. Telecom towers have been given infrastructure status by Government of India vide gazette Notification No.81 dated 28/3/2012. All benefits as applicable to infrastructure industry, should be extended. Electricity connection may be provided to BTS site on priority. IV. Telecom installations are lifeline installations and a critical infrastructure in mobile communication. In order to avoid disruption in mobile communication, an essential service, sealing of BTS towers/disconnection of electricity may not be resorted to without the consent of the respective TERM Cell of DOT in respect of the EMF related issues. V. State Governments along with DOT may organise public awareness programmes involving civil society members. VI. In order to effectively address Public Grievances relating to installation of towers and issues related to telecom infrastructure, State Governments may set up: State Level Telecom Committee (STC) consisting of officers from TERM Cells, State Administration, representatives of concerned Telecom Service Providers and eminent public persons etc. District Level Telecom Committee (DTC) consisting of officers from District Administration, representatives of concerned Telecom Service Providers and eminent public persons etc. C. Action by DOT/TERM Cells I. Public awareness programme (Through DOT web portal/Govt.publication). II (a). For all the existing as well as new BTSs/Towers, Telecom Service Providers are required to submit self-;certificates periodically in the format as prescribed by TEC, DOT, in order to ensure that normally all general public areas around the site are within the safe EMR exposure limits. II (a). For all the existing as well as new BTSs/Towers, Telecom Service Providers are required to submit self-;certificates periodically in the format as prescribed by TEC, DOT, in order to ensure that normally all general public areas around the site are within the safe EMR exposure limits. Any violation noticed attracts heavy penalties on Telecom Service Providers and may also lead to shut down of BTS in case the violation persists. (b). The TERM Cells have been given clear instructions with regard to the technical audit of BTS, including for radiation from towers within safe limits. These include roof top/ground based/pole mounted/wall mounted towers. They will also verify antenna orientation, safe distance from the tower (exclusion zone) etc. Installation and augmentation of BTS and antenna is a continuous process. DOT is organising frequent workshops for these officers to ensure observance of the latest guidelines issued by DOT on the subject of EMF radiation and public safety. 13. Additional Guidelines, dated 1/8/2013, for TERM Cells are as follows. 1. Instructions/guidelines have been issued to the TERM Cells for auditing the RF radiations from Bts for compliance to the prescribed norms. Following are additional guidelines to TERM cells in the matter. 2. With a view to strengthen monitoring and compliance of safety aspects/provisions in regard to radio frequency emissions from mobile towers, TERM cells may take the following also into account while conducting their audits for the purpose of ensuring that all general public areas are within safe EMF exposure limits as prescribed by DOT. In case of both ground based towers & roof top towers, there shall be no building right in front of the antenna(e), of equivalent height taking into account the tilt of the lowest antenna on tower as per details in the table below. Further, the antennae at the same height only are to be counted, as the beam width of the mobile antennae, in the vertical direction, is very narrow. Number of antenna (e) pointed in the same direction Building/structure safe distance from the antenna (e) at the same height (in meters) 1 20 2 35 4 45 6 55 The distance figures in the above table are based on empirical estimation considering that all the antennae are emitting at their maximum RF power of 20 watts and exactly in the same direction with same height (a worst case scenario). In practice, the values of safe distance of buildings will depend upon actual deployment scenarios and mostly, may be far less than depicted above. 3. Wall Mounted/Pole mounted Antenna: Wherever the antennae are mounted on the wall of building or pole on/along the road, their height should be at least 5 meters above ground level/road level. However, such installations will have to comply with the radiation limits. As far as safe distance of buildings from antenna is concerned, guidelines as given above will apply. 14. Government of India, Ministry of Communications, issued a Notification, dated 15th November, 2016, to regulate the underground infrastructure (optical fibre) and over ground infrastructure (mobile towers). Chapter III of the said Notification deals with Establishment of Over ground Telegraph infrastructure, with which we are concerned. Clause 9 and 10 of the said Notification, reads as under. 9. Application by a licensee-; (1) A licensee shall, for the purposes of establishing overground telegraph infrastructure, upon any immovable property vested in or under the control or management of any appropriate authority, make an application, supported by such documents, to that appropriate authority in such form and manner as may be specified by that appropriate authority. (2). The information along with supporting documents to be provided by the licensee in the application made under sub-;rule (1) shall include, (i). a copy of the licence granted by the Central Government (ii). the nature and location, including exact latitude and longitude, of post or other above round contrivances proposed to be established; (iii). the extent of land required for establishment of the over ground telegraph infrastructure (iv). the details of the building or structure, where the establishment of the over ground telegraph infrastructure, is proposed (v). the copy of approval issued by the duly authorised officer of the Central Government for location of the above ground contrivances proposed to be used for the transmission of Radio waves or Hertzian waves; (vi). The mode of and the time duration for, execution of the work; (vii). The inconvenience that is likely to be caused to the public and the specific measure proposed to be taken to mitigate such inconvenience. (viii). The measure proposed to be taken to ensure public safety during the execution of the work. (ix). The detailed technical design and drawings of the post or other above ground contrivances. (x). The inconvenience that is likely to be caused to the public and the specific measure proposed to be taken to mitigate such inconvenience. (viii). The measure proposed to be taken to ensure public safety during the execution of the work. (ix). The detailed technical design and drawings of the post or other above ground contrivances. (x). certification of the technical design by a structural engineer attesting to the structural safety, of the over ground telegraph infrastructure. (xi). Certification, by a structural engineer, attesting to the structural safety of the building, where the post or other above ground contrivances is proposed to be established on a building. (xii). The names and contact details of the employees of the licensee for the purpose of communication in regard to the application made (xiii). Any other matter relevant, in the opinion of the licensee, connected with or relative to the work proposed to be undertaken; and (xiv). Any other matter connected with or relevant to the work as may be specified, through a general or special order, by the Central Government or appropriate State Government or appropriate local authority. (3). Every application under sub-;rule (1) shall be accompanied with such fee to meet administrative expenses for examination of the application and the proposed work as the appropriate authority may, by general order, deem fit: Provided that the one-;time fee, to meet administrative expenses, accompanying every application shall not exceed ten thousand rupees. 15. Government of Tamil Nadu have issued a Notification in G.O.Ms.No.1, Information Technology (B4) Department, dated 21/2/2018 and the entire G.O., reads as under. Information Technology Department -; Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016 notified by the Government of India -; Implementation in the State of Tamil Nadu ? -; Procedure for grant of Right of Way (RoW) permission for laying Optical Fibre Cables (OFC) and installation of Cellphone Towers -; Revised -; Orders -; Issued. Information Technology (B4) Department G.O.(Ms).No.1 Dated: 21.02.2018 1. G O.Ms.No.7, Information Technology Department, dated 12.2.2001. 2. G.O.Ms.No.2, Information Technology Department, dated 1.4.2002. 3. Letter No.237/IT/2002/7, Information Technology Department, dated 18.9.2002. 4. Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules 2016 notified in the Government of India Gazette Notification No. GSR 1070 (E) dated 15.11.2016. 5. From the Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, D.O letter No.2-;6/20-;Policy-;I (Vol VIII) dated 23.11.2016. G O.Ms.No.7, Information Technology Department, dated 12.2.2001. 2. G.O.Ms.No.2, Information Technology Department, dated 1.4.2002. 3. Letter No.237/IT/2002/7, Information Technology Department, dated 18.9.2002. 4. Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules 2016 notified in the Government of India Gazette Notification No. GSR 1070 (E) dated 15.11.2016. 5. From the Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, D.O letter No.2-;6/20-;Policy-;I (Vol VIII) dated 23.11.2016. ORDER: In the Government Order first read above consolidated guidelines were issued specifying the terms and conditions for the grant of centralised permission for the use of public Right of Way (ROW) by any private or public sector applicant proposing to lay Optic Fibre Cables (OFCs) in Tamil Nadu. As per the Guidelines prescribed in the Government Order first read above, the Public / Private Communication Providers (PCPs) have to pay annual track rent to the concerned local bodies and to provide 2 Mbps (two Mbps) free bandwidth to the State Government. 2. In the Government order 2nd read above and in the Government letter 3rd read above, guidelines have been issued to telecom companies for installation of Base Stations consisting of Tower, Equipment room and Generator room, on rooftop or on the ground of premises and buildings belonging to Government of Tamil Nadu / Quasi Governments / Public Sector Undertakings / Local Bodies/ Private lands and buildings subject to availability and technical feasibility, on a non-;exclusive basis subject to certain terms and conditions. As per clause 4 (i) of the Government Order 2nd read above, permission for installing towers, equipment and generator etc., on case to case basis will be issued by the District Collectors concerned in consultation with the district offices concerned. 3. The Government of India has notified the -; Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules 2016? to regulate underground Telegraph infrastructure (optical fibre) and over ground Telegraph infrastructure (mobile towers) under/upon any immovable property vested in or under the control or management of any appropriate authority, in the Gazette notification 4th read above. 3. The Government of India has notified the -; Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules 2016? to regulate underground Telegraph infrastructure (optical fibre) and over ground Telegraph infrastructure (mobile towers) under/upon any immovable property vested in or under the control or management of any appropriate authority, in the Gazette notification 4th read above. Among other things, the Rules stipulate that every application for establishment of telegraph infrastructure, shall be accompanied with such fee to meet administrative expenses for examination of the application and the proposed work as the appropriate authority by may, general order deem fit and the appropriate authority shall within a period not exceeding sixty days from the date of application, grant permission on such conditions including, but not limited to, payment of restoration charge, as may be specified, subject to the provisions of the Act and these rules (or) reject the application for reasons to be recorded in writing. 4. In the letter 5th read above, the Secretary, Department of Telecommunications has requested the State Government to nominate a suitable officer not below the level of Principal Secretary to the Government so as to enable Government of India to notify such officers as the designated officers for dispute resolution. He has also requested that the Right of Way Rules need to be widely circulated to all agencies who are involved in granting Right of Way permissions so as to sensitise them about the provisions of the Rules and has also sought for the co-;operation of the State Government in implementing the Rules in their true letter and spirit to help in creation of telecom infrastructure that can deliver high speed broadband to all citizens at affordable prices. 5. The Government, after careful examination, have decided to implement the Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016, notified by Government of India, in the Gazette Notification No. GSR 1070 (E) dated 15.11.2016, in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Government further direct that. (a)The District Collectors, in respect of all Districts and the Commissioner for Greater Chennai Corporation in respect of Chennai, be designated as the Nodal Officers for the respective jurisdictions and authorised to issue Right of Way (RoW) permissions for Overground Telecom Infrastructure (Towers) and Underground Telecom Infrastructure (OFC) in respect of all areas in the Districts (including Highways, Public Works Department, Forest etc.,) under the provisions of Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016. (b)ELCOT be designated as the nodal agency for the purposes of the Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016 and to develop an electronic application process, as required under sub rule (2) of rule (4) of the said Rules, for submission of online applications by the Licensees for grant of Right of Way permissions, which shall have a provision for consolidation of the demand raised by the authorities concerned and the collections received. (c)The Principal Secretary to Government, Information Technology Department be nominated as the Dispute Resolution Officer, under the provisions of Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016. (d) Levy and collection of track rent for the Telecom Infrastructure, be continued in accordance with the existing guidelines issued by the State for the present, till they are revised, in addition to collection of administrative expenses / restoration charges/compensation prescribed by the Government of India for establishing the Overground Telecom Infrastructure (Towers) and Underground Telecom Infrastructure (OFC) as per the provisions of Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016. (e) The existing guidelines as per G.O (Ms) No.2, Information Technology Department dated 1.4.2002, for installation of Overground Telecom Infrastructure (Towers) in Private Buildings, be continued since these are not covered by the Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016. (f) Pending requests received from the Telecom Companies for Right of Way (RoW) permissions for laying OFC for which No Objection Certificate (NOC)? has already been received, be remitted to the respective District Collectors in respect of all Districts and the Commissioner for Greater Chennai Corporation in respect of Chennai for according of Right of Way permission under the provisions of Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016. (g) Detailed guidelines will be issued by the Information Technology Department for the successful implementation of the Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016, regulating the Underground /Over ground Telecom Infrastructure in Public/ Private areas/ buildings and amendments thereto, if any required, in consultation with the concerned Departments. 6. This order issues with the concurrence of Finance (Industries) Department vide its U.O. No.7954/lnd/2018, dated 19.02.2018. (By Order of the Governor) 16. A perusal of all the G.Os and Notifications issued from time to time, would show that G.O.Ms.No.2 Information Technology Department, dated 1/4/2002, which has been extended to installation of mobile towers in G.O.Ms.No.302, dated 12/2/2012 has not been superseded or over ruled. (By Order of the Governor) 16. A perusal of all the G.Os and Notifications issued from time to time, would show that G.O.Ms.No.2 Information Technology Department, dated 1/4/2002, which has been extended to installation of mobile towers in G.O.Ms.No.302, dated 12/2/2012 has not been superseded or over ruled. The said G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 1/4/2002 makes it clear that permission for installation of towers, equipment and generator, on case to case basis will be issued by the District Collector concerned in consultation with the District Office concerned. The said G.O., also states that technical feasibility, the structure on which the tower would be installed etc., have to be looked into. 17. Mr.Om Prakash, learned Senior counsel for R.6 in W.P.No.15144 of 2019 vehemently submitted that in paragraph 5 (g) of G.O.Ms.No.1, Information Technology (B4) Department, dated 21/12/2018, Government is yet to issue guidelines for the successful implementation of the Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016, regulating the Underground/Over ground Telecom Infrastructure in Public/Private areas/buildings and amendments thereto, if any required, in consultation with the concerned departments. He would therefore, submit that in the absence of guidelines, permission to install the tower cannot be refused and the instant public interest litigations cannot be entertained. He would also categorically state that they have approached various Departments for grant of permission but the departments have not taken the matter forward. 18. We are afraid that the contention of Mr.Om Prakash can be accepted. Clause (e) of paragraph 5 of G.O.Ms.1, Information Technology (B 4) Department, dated 21/12/2018, would show that the existence guidelines as per G.O.Ms.No.2 Information Technology Department, dated 1/4/2002, for installation of Over ground Telecom Infrastructure (Towers) in Private Buildings will be continued to apply, since they are not covered by the Indian Telegraphic Right of Way Rules, 2016. 19. Perusal of Clause 4(e) (supra) would state that all the conditions in G.O.Ms.No.2 Information Technology Department, dated 1/4/2002, which has been extended to mobile towers to be erected on private buildings still occupies the field and holds till date. 20. In view of the above, it cannot be said that till the guidelines are framed, no permission is required. Similar issue regarding the very same respondent arose before a Honble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.21979 and 14877 of 2017, Indus Towers Limited and another & 1 Vs. 20. In view of the above, it cannot be said that till the guidelines are framed, no permission is required. Similar issue regarding the very same respondent arose before a Honble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.21979 and 14877 of 2017, Indus Towers Limited and another & 1 Vs. The Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration Department, Chennai and two others), wherein the learned Division Bench has observed as under. 12. The sum and substance of the case is that the petitioners in W.P.No.21979 of 2017 like to have the Base Trans Receiver Station Towers in a private land, for which, whether the planning approval is required in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules and Multi-;storeyed and Public Building Rules. But for G.O.Ms.No.2, Information Technology Department, dated 1/4/2002, G.O.Ms.No.302, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 12/2/2002 and G.O.Ms.No.177, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 17/12/2002, the exemption has been granted with regard to the Base Trans Receiver Station Tower from the aforesaid Act/Rules. The petitioners get their right only based on the said G.O.Ms.No.177, dated 17/12/2002. On a reading of paragraph 3 of the said G.O.Ms.No.177, it would make it clear that the Government has granted exemption to BTS Towers constructed by Telecom Companies from the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules and the Multi-;Storeyed and Public Building Rules, subject tot he conditions imposed in the said G.O.Ms.No.2 and the Governments letter dated 18/9/2002, which means that the conditions mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.2 have been bodily incorporated into G.O.Ms.No.177. Unless the petitioners satisfy/fulfils the conditions laid down in the said G.O.Ms.No.2, the petitioners cannot have a right to have the cell phone towers ? Base Trans Receiver Station Towers. 13. It is true that there is no need for any building plan or permission from the authorities. What is required as per the said G.Os, is that an application has got to be obtained. A ready of G.O.Ms.No.2 makes it clear that permission may be granted initially for a period of ten years and the word permission would mean that there shall be an application and that the authorities will have to scrutinise the papers and permit the person to operate the cell phone towers in a particular place. 14. A reading of G.O.Ms.No.177 in isolation without reference to G.O.Ms.No.2, would not be correct. 14. A reading of G.O.Ms.No.177 in isolation without reference to G.O.Ms.No.2, would not be correct. No prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioners, if all the particulars/documents that are required by the authorities are produced. There are Advisory Guidelines for the State Government framed by the DOT (Department of Telecommunication) for issuance of Clearance Certificate for the purpose of installing Mobile Towers with effect from 1/8/2013, wherein it is stated that detailed scrutiny has got to be done including structural stability, etc. As the cell phone towers are going to be used for the purpose of making the citizens to use the cell phones, it is mandatory on the part of the petitioners in W.P.No.21979 of 2017 to seek prior permission from the authorities concerned. Without the permission from them, the petitioners cannot be permitted to operated the cell phone towers from the Base Trans Receiver Station Towers. However, it is mandatory that even before the installation, such permission has got to be granted and taking note of the present case that the installation has already commenced, the necessary papers along with the request may be made to the authorities and the said authorities will have to consider the request of the petitioners in W.P.No.21979 of 2017 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.2. It will not preclude the authorities from looking into the Advisory Guidelines of the DOT for the purpose of granting the relief sought for by the petitioners. It is open for the petitioners in W.P.No.21979 of 2017 to make an application to the authorities within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, enclosing all the necessary documents. When once such application is received, the authorities shall hear the petitioners in W.P.No.21979 of 2017 and also the petitioner in W.P.No.14877 of 2017 and others who are interested in the matter, including the complainant and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such application from the petitioners. It is needless to mention that the observations touching upon the merits of the issue in question, are only for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions and the petitioners and others are entitled to put forth their factual and legal submissions before the authorities, who shall consider the request of the petitioners in accordance with the statutory provisions/Rules/guidelines, if any.? 21. 21. The said judgment has come prior to G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 21/2/2018 which makes the position very clear. In view of the above, we hold that general permission to any licenced telecom company and erect towers can be granted subject to the terms and conditions, laid down in G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 01.04.2002, passed by the Information Technology Department. 22. Keeping in mind the statement of Mr.Om Prakash, learned Senior counsel that his clients have approached the Officers concerned and they have not processed the request further, we direct Indus Towers Limited, Chennai, sixth respondent in W.P.No.15144 of 2017 and tenth respondent in W.P.No.7544 of 2017, to make a fresh application, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.2, Information Technology Department, dated 1/4/2002, for erection of towers (even if they are already installed), within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.P.No.15144 of 2017 are directed to consider the application and take a decision in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks, thereafter. 23. In those areas where Mobile Towers have been erected without following the G.O.Ms.No.2, Information Technology Department, dated 1/4/2002, the Collectors are directed to issue notices to the operators directing them to make applications for erection of the Mobile Towers, within one week from the date of receipt of this order and on the receipt of the application, the District Collectors shall pass orders on merits in accordance with rules, but not later than three weeks and issue directions in accordance with the decision taken. 7. There cannot be a mandamus restraining the District Collector from exercising his duties, as to whether permission should be granted or not. Permission to be granted subject to fulfillment of certain conditions, extracted supra. No order can be issued to the respondents to locate in some other place also. 8. In view of the above decision, the instant writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.” 13. Chapter XIX of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 deals with telecommunication towers and the same reads thus: “130. No order can be issued to the respondents to locate in some other place also. 8. In view of the above decision, the instant writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.” 13. Chapter XIX of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 deals with telecommunication towers and the same reads thus: “130. Essentiality of permit.- NO person shall erect or re-erect any non Governmental telecommunication tower or telecommunication pole structures or accessory rooms or make alteration or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a separate permit far each such tower or telecommunication pole structures from the Secretary. 131. Distance form road and boundaries.- (1) The base of the tower or poles shall have minimum 3 metres distance from the plot boundary abutting the road, whether it is proposed on land or over a building, even if the building is having less than 3 metres distance: Provided that the distance from road boundary of the accessory rooms such as equipment rooms, shelters, or generator rooms proposed over a building shall be that of the building. (2) In addition to the distance specified under sub rule (1), set back required for road widening proposed in any Town Planning Scheme shall also be provided. (3) Distance from other boundaries of the plot to the base of the telecommunication tower Or Pole structure or accessory rooms shall be minimum 1.20 rnetres: provided that if the telecommunication tower or pole structures or accessory rooms are proposed over a building, the distance from the boundaries other than that abutting a road; shall be that of the existing building; Provided further that if the building abuts any plot boundary and the telecommunication tower or pole structures or accessory rooms are also proposed to abut that boundary then consent of the owner of the plot on the abutting side shall be obtained and produced along with the application for permit: Provided also that no portion of the telecommunication tower pole structure or accessory room shall project or over hang into the neighboring plots. 132. 132. Provisions regarding FAR and height.- The provisions regarding FAR, coverage, height restriction with regard to width of road and distance from the boundary abutting road, distance from central line of road and dimension of parts of building shall not apply to telecommunication towers or pole structures or accessory rooms such as equipment rooms, shelters or generator rooms. Provided that the height of the telecommunication towers or pole structure or accessory rooms, including the height of the building if they are proposed over a building, shall be restricted as shown in Table 3 of sub rule (2) of rule 32 and for exceeding the height restriction specified under Table 3 of the said rule, clearance from the concerned airport authority shall be obtained and produced before issuing permit. Provided further that additional distance from boundary abutting the road and other boundaries of the plot proportionate to increase in height shall not be necessary for the telecommunication tower or pole structures or accessory rooms or for the building over which they are proposed. 133. Accessory rooms.- (1) Accessory rooms such as equipment rooms, shelters or Generator rooms essential for the service shall be permitted along with a telecommunication tower or telecommunication pole structures or separately, if a request is made in the application and plans/drawings of the rooms are attached either along with the application for permit or separately. (2) The cabin may be made with any material but the area of such cabin shall not exceed 15 Sq.mts. (3) Installation of electricity generator may be allowed if the generator is covered with insulated sound-proof cabin. (4) Every construction or installation ancillary or necessary for the telecommunication system shall conform to the relevant rules applicable to such construction or installation and licence or permit required under such rules shall also be obtained. (5) The telecommunication tower or ancillary structures shall not prevent or block the access, exit or entry or reduce the width of such access, exit or entry of building or in no way badly affect the safety measures or amenities provided in the building in which it is erected. 134. Electrical line clearance.- Every tower or ancillary construction shall satisfy the minimum vertical and horizontal clearance from electrical lines as stipulated in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 as amended from time to time and also any regulation issued by the State Electricity Board. 135. 134. Electrical line clearance.- Every tower or ancillary construction shall satisfy the minimum vertical and horizontal clearance from electrical lines as stipulated in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 as amended from time to time and also any regulation issued by the State Electricity Board. 135. Protective Wall.- (1) Every tower erected on the ground and through which electric power is transmitted or passed shall be provided with protective wall or grill at a distance of one metre from any point of the base. (2) The wall or grill shall have a minimum of 1.20 metres height and shall be kept under lock and key, if provided with door. 136. Protection from lightening.- Every telecommunication tower shall be provided with sufficient protection against lightning, conforming to I.S. 2303-1969-Code of Practice, as amended from time to time. 137. Warning lights and colour specifications.- (1) Every telecommunication tower shall be provided with two Aviation Warning Lights (ANL) each at 40 metres and 70 metres height from the ground level and one at the top, the two lights at 40 metres height shall be fixed in one set of opposite and that at 70 metres height shall be fixed at the other set of opposite corners. (2) Every telecommunication tower shall be painted with international orange and international white colors alternatively each with 5 meter band, starting straight with international orange at the top. 138. Damage and liability.- The applicant/owner shall be responsible for the structural stability of the telecommunication tower and the building in which it is erected and for any damage caused due to inadequate safety measures. 139. Building to be authorised.- Erection of any telecommunication tower or pole structures or accessory rooms shall be permitted only over authorised buildings. 140. Clearance from Defence Establishment etc.- In case the erection of telecommunication tower is proposed within 200 metres from any property maintained by Defence Establishment or 100 metres from any rail way, clearance from the concerned officer in charge or authority, as the case may be, shall also be obtained before issuing permit 140A. Site approval etc.- (1) No site approval shall be necessary for the construction of telecommunication towers, telecommunication pole structures or accessory rooms essential for such service. (2) Telecommunication towers or pole structures or accessory rooms shall be permitted in any zone or over any building irrespective of its occupancy. 141. Site approval etc.- (1) No site approval shall be necessary for the construction of telecommunication towers, telecommunication pole structures or accessory rooms essential for such service. (2) Telecommunication towers or pole structures or accessory rooms shall be permitted in any zone or over any building irrespective of its occupancy. 141. Submission of application and its disposal.- (1) Application for permit shall be submitted to the Secretary in the form in Appendix A along with two copies of site plan, location, elevation, sections, [ x x x x ], structural stability certificate, copy of agreement executed with department of Telecommunications or license or permit issued by an authority approved by Government of India from time to time and document to prove ownership. Note. - (1) Ownership document may be a sale deed or mortgage deed or deed of agreement or license or consent document, etc. (2) No structural stability certificate shall be necessary in the case of telecommunication pole structures and accessory rooms. (3) In case the telecommunication tower is proposed above any building, structural stability certificate shall he submitted in respect of that building also. (4) The site plan shall show plot dimensions, access street width, details of existing structures within the plot with their uses, height, number of floors, set back from the plot boundaries and between them; proposed tower and ancillary structures. (5) The structural stability certificate shall be one issued by an Engineer having post graduate degree in Civil Engineering or Structural Engineering, registered or employed in Central or State Government Service or Quasi- Government Organisation. (6) Application fee shall be Rs. one thousand and permit fee shall be,- (a) for towers of any height, rupees ten thousand; 5(b) for pole structures (one unit with any number of poles) rupees two thousand and five hundred. 6(c) no separate application fee shall be necessary for the accessory rooms essential for the use of telecommunication tower or pole structures but permit fee shill be remitted corresponding to their area as in the case of a pucca building. (7) For the purpose of levying fee, the height of the tower shall be taken from the base of the tower and not from the base of the building. (7) For the purpose of levying fee, the height of the tower shall be taken from the base of the tower and not from the base of the building. (8) The secretary shall, if convinced of the boundaries and ownership of the plot, plan and drawings and genuineness of the certificates, issue permit, not later than 30 days from the date of receipt of application. (9) The permit issued under sub rule (8) shall be a work permit and the construction or erection of telecommunication tower or telecommunication pole structures or accessory rooms essential for the use of such tower or pole structures shall be completed within one year from the date of issue of permit. (10) The period of the permit shall be extended for a further period of one year if an application for the same is submitted to the secretary, within the valid period of the permit. (11) The application for extension of the period of permit shall be submitted in white paper, typed or written in ink, affixed with necessary court fee stamp; original permit shall also be attached. (12) No application fee shall be necessary for extension of period of permit but fee for extension shall be equal to fifty per cent of the fee for original permit in force at the time of extension. 142. Completion Certificate.- (1) After completion of the work of the telecommunication tower or pole structure and accessory rooms as per permit, the applicant and the engineer shall submit to the Secretary completion certificate as in Form E and Form F respectively, along with a certificate of structural safety/stability of the tower and the building, if the tower or pole is constructed over a building. (2) The secretary shall, if satisfied that the work has been completed as per permit, issue use certificate as in Appendix H allotting a number, included in a different series from that allotted to buildings, on the basis of which the authorities concerned may allow power connection, etc. for use of the service.” 14. In G.O(Ms) No.31/2014/ITD, Information Technology (B) Department dated 5.11.2014, committees have been constituted for addressing the public grievances in the matter of installation of mobile towers. for use of the service.” 14. In G.O(Ms) No.31/2014/ITD, Information Technology (B) Department dated 5.11.2014, committees have been constituted for addressing the public grievances in the matter of installation of mobile towers. Said Government order is extracted hereunder: “GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Abstract Information Technology Department -Installation of Mobile Towers - Structure of TC & DTC for addressing Public Grievance- Imposition of One time Administration Fee - Modified Orders Issued ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (B) DEPARTMENT G.O.(Ms) No. 31/2014/ITD. Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 5-11-2014 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Read: 1. GO(Ms) No. 14/2014/ITD, dated 15-03-2014. 2. G.O (Ms) No.25/2014/1TD, dated 02-08-2014 3. Minutes of the meeting held by the Principal Secretary, ITD on 21.10.2014. ORDER As per G.O read as first paper above, State Government had decided to follow the revised guidelines issued by Government of India for installation of Mobile Towers in the state with effect from 15-03-2014. Subsequently as per GO read as second paper above Telecom Committees (State Telecom Committee & District Telecom Committee) were constituted for addressing public grievances and Rs. 5000/- was imposed as one time administration fee for granting permission to install mobile tower besides the application fee and permit fee levied by Local Self Government Institutions. 2. In the annual conference of District Collectors and Head of Departments held on 13-10-14 the District Collectors had pointed out the difficulties for convening such an unwieldly District Telecom Committee for addressing public grievance. Telecom Service Providers operating in the state, in the meeting held on 21-10-2014 convened by the Principal Secretary(IT), have inter alia requested to (i) downsize the STC &DTC as it is felt unwieldly and (ii) withdraw the one time administration fee of Rs.5000/- ordered as per GO read as second paper above on the ground that LSGIs are already collecting fee for the same purpose. 3. Government, after having examined the matter in detail, are pleased to reconstitute the State Telecom Committee(STC) and District Telecom Committee (DTC) to address public grievance in connection with the mobile towers, in all 14 districts as detailed below: I. District Telecom Committee (DTC) 1. District Collector of the Concerned District Chairman 2. District Medical Officer of Concerned District Member 3. TERM Cell representative of the Concerned district Member 4. Secretary of the Concerned LSGI who issues permit Member 5. District Environmental Engineer, Pollution Control Board (PCB) of the Concerned District Member 6. District Collector of the Concerned District Chairman 2. District Medical Officer of Concerned District Member 3. TERM Cell representative of the Concerned district Member 4. Secretary of the Concerned LSGI who issues permit Member 5. District Environmental Engineer, Pollution Control Board (PCB) of the Concerned District Member 6. An eminent public person from the concerned District to be nominated by the chairman of DTC Member II. State Telecom Committee (STC) 1. Principal Secretary, Information Technology Department Chairman 2. Secretary, Health Department Member 3. Secretary, Local Self Government Department Member 4. Deputy Director General(TERM) Kerala Member 5. Chairman, State Pollution Control Board Member 6. An eminent public person to be nominated by the chairman of STC Member 4. A representative of the concerned Telecom Service Provider may be invited to STC/DTC, as the case may be, to present their case. The DTC shall act as a public grievance redressal mechanism where as STC shall act as an advisory body relating to the common issues pertaining to mobile tower installation and it will look after general issues relating to mobile towers which has state wide application. STC shall no longer be an appellate body of DTC. DTC shall take a decision on public grievances as early as possible, preferably within 15 days and communicate the same to LSGI concerned. STC shall meet once in six months. Government also clarify that no prior clearance from the DTC is required for issuance of permit by the concerned Local Self Government Institution for installation of mobile tower. 5. The decision to collect an amount of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as one time administration fee imposed as per G.O read as second paper above stands withdrawn. 6. The GO read as second paper above stands modified to the above extend. (BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR) Siva Sankar M Secretary to Government” 15. On 13.2.2019, Electro Magnetic Frequency Certification for Radiation Compliance has been issued to M/s. Indus Towers Limited, Ernakulam, respondent No.3, by the Junior Telecom Officer (T), O/o. Sr. DDG (Kerala) DoT, Kochi, and the same read thus: “EMF CERTIFICATION FOR RADIATION COMPLIANCE Date of Submission 02/13/19 Name of the Operator AIRTEL-GSM Site Name Vadyar Side id VIKM10 Name of the IP Provider INDUS TOWERS IP ID IN-1356259 Lat & Long of the site 9.75939N 76.4068E Adress of the Proposed Tower Sy. DDG (Kerala) DoT, Kochi, and the same read thus: “EMF CERTIFICATION FOR RADIATION COMPLIANCE Date of Submission 02/13/19 Name of the Operator AIRTEL-GSM Site Name Vadyar Side id VIKM10 Name of the IP Provider INDUS TOWERS IP ID IN-1356259 Lat & Long of the site 9.75939N 76.4068E Adress of the Proposed Tower Sy. No.77/15 A Naduvile Village, Vaikom Taluk, Kottayam District Type of tower (RTT/GBT/RTP/WM) GBT Building Height (AGL) in case of RTT/RTP/WM 0 Proposed Tower Height (AGL) 40 Porposed Antenna Height (AGL) 40 WPC/SACFA Clearance details (SACFA ID) 2019365149 Number of Towers/Operators present within 20mtrs radius Zero Technical value of EIRP/EIRPth Ratio as per DOT formulae 0.016992439 The maximum permissible technical limit set for this ratio as per TEC of DOT Govt. of India is : 1 Certification by the Operator We here by clarify that we have done the estimation of the EMR for the proposed site according to the Calculation Method as per the technical parameters and formulae stipulated by the Govt. of India, DoT and the values are found to be weel within the stipulated limits set by the Govt. of India. The detailed calculation sheet is attached as annexure. For Bharti Airtel Limited Authorised Signatory: Sd/- Date: FOR THE USE OF TERM CELL KERALA Acknowledgement receipt by the TERM Cell We acknowledge the receipt of EMF compliance certification submitted by the operator for the new site in the format as prescribed by TEC (DoT), establishing/certifying that all general Public areas around the tower will be within safe EMR exposure limit as per the peak traffic measurement after the antennae starts radiating. The operator shall submit a fresh certification at the time of actual commissioning of the site to DOT. TERM KRL/Pre-EMF/BHARTI AIRTEL/2018/483” 16. Rule 11 of the said Rules is extracted hereunder: “11. Approval of site and plans and issue of permit.- (1) The Secretary shall, after inspection of the site and verification of the site plan and documents, if convinced of the bonafides of the ownership of the site, and that the site plan, drawings and specifications conforms to the site and the provisions of these rules or bye laws made under the Act and any other law, approve the site and site plan. (2) The Secretary shall, after approving the site and site plan verify whether the building plan, elevation and sections of the building and specifications of the work conforms to the site and site plan, and is in accordance with these rules and bye laws made under the Act or any other law, approve the plan and issue permit to execute the work. (3) Approval of site and plans shall be intimated to the applicant in writing and the permit as in Appendix C shall be issued on remittance of the permit fee at the rates specified in Schedule II and submission of revised or modified plans, if approved with modifications or conditions. (4) If after inspection of the site and verification of the plans and documents, Secretary decides to refuse approval, the same shall be communicated in writing specifying the reasons. (5) Secretary shall, if modification to any plan, drawing or specification is required or any further document or plan or information is required or fresh plan is required under these rules for taking a decision, intimate the same to the applicant in writing within ten days from the date of receipt of such application or plan or document or information.” 17. In exercise of the power conferred under Rule 11(3) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, permission has been granted to M/s. Indus Towers Limited, Ernakulam, respondent No.3, for constructing a building and the same reads thus: “Kerala Municipal Building Rules APPENDIX C [See Rule 11(3)] GENERAL BUILDING PERMIT Vaikom Municipality Kottayam Permit No. : E1-BA(93654)/2019 Dated 16/03/2019 Ref Application No. E1/1558/2019 Dated 16/03/2019 from Sri/Smt : INDUS TOWERS LTD INDUS TOWERS LTD, 8TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS, COCHIN, NH BYPASS, PALARIVATTOM, Edappally P.O., Ernakulam, Kerala-682024, India Permission is granted for the :Erection Tower in the Nearest building No.4/132 in Survey No.(S-Survey & R-Resurvey] S-77/15A-A-3 Village Naduvile Taluk Vaikom District Kottayam for Towe Subject to the conditions stated below: 1. Erection Tower [Permit is Valid Upto One year-(08/05/2020) Plinth area of the building is as follows: Construction Ground Floor Total Total Signature: Name & Designation : REMYA KRISHNAN MUNICIPAL SECRETARY Place : Vaikom Date : 16/03/2019 Vaikom Municipality Kottayam” 18. District Collector, Kottayam vide proceedings dated 31.10.2019 has granted permission for installation of tower. Erection Tower [Permit is Valid Upto One year-(08/05/2020) Plinth area of the building is as follows: Construction Ground Floor Total Total Signature: Name & Designation : REMYA KRISHNAN MUNICIPAL SECRETARY Place : Vaikom Date : 16/03/2019 Vaikom Municipality Kottayam” 18. District Collector, Kottayam vide proceedings dated 31.10.2019 has granted permission for installation of tower. The same is extracted hereunder:- “Proceedings of the District Collector, Kottayam (Present: P.K. Sudheer Babu, l.A.S.) Sub: Regarding the Installation of Indus Mobile Transmission Tower in the area bearing Survey No: 77/15 A-A of the 4“ ward of Vaikkom Corporation, Naduvile Village Ref: (1) Application dated 11/06/19, submitted by Sri.Sudhakaran Pillai, Kondannadu House, Chalaparambu, Vaikkom. (2) Report No: E1-3366/19 dated 14/06/19 of the Secretary, Vaikkom Corporation. (3) Meeting Conducted by District Telecom Committee on 05/06/19. (4) Report No.C2-8899/2019 dated 30/08/ 19 of the Medical Officer Kottayam (5) Report No.V1-9762/2019/EIK dated 14/10/19 of the Electrical Inspector, Kottayam. Order No.DCKTM/4844/2019 dated 31/10/2019 A Complaint was submitted by Sri.Sudhakaran Pillai, Kondanadu House, Chalapparambu vide reference No(1) against the installation of Mobile transmission Tower by the Indus Towers Ltd. Company in the plot belonging to njalliyil Radhamony of Survey No: 77/15 A-A-3 of Naduvilla Village, ward No.4 coming under the Jurisdiction of the Vaikom Corporation. On the basis of the said application a meeting was convened at the Chamber of District Collector by District Telecom Committee at 2.30 P.M. on 05/08/19 which was presided over by the District Collector. The below mentioned persons participated in the District Telecom Committee meeting held on 05/08/19. 1. Sri. Vineeth John Toms, Department of Telecom, TERM DOT, Kochi 2. Sri.K.Y.Johnson, Technical Assistant, District Medical Office, Kottayam 3. Smt.Simi Das M.A., Assistant Engineer, Pollution Control Board, Kottayam 4. Smt. O.V. Maya, Secretary in Charge, Vaikkom Corporation 5. Sri.V.G. Sankaran, Indus Towers Ltd., Ernakulam 6. Sri.Sudhakaran Pillai, Kondanadu House, Chalaparambu, Vaikom It was informed by the representative of Indus Tower Ltd. in the meeting that all the required permission which were legally required for the construction the tower were obtained from the related Government establishments including the radiation Compliance Certificate. Sri.V.G. Sankaran, Indus Towers Ltd., Ernakulam 6. Sri.Sudhakaran Pillai, Kondanadu House, Chalaparambu, Vaikom It was informed by the representative of Indus Tower Ltd. in the meeting that all the required permission which were legally required for the construction the tower were obtained from the related Government establishments including the radiation Compliance Certificate. It is reported by the District Medical Officer Kottayam that the house of Radhamony situated on the Eastern side of the Tower is having a distance of 35.5 meter form the tower, and is having 20 meter distance with the newly built house situated on the eastern side having 25 meter distance with the vacant non-resident house situated at the South- Western side and around 25 meter distance with the house situated at the Northern side. In addition to that the District Medical Officer, Kottayam has reported that the Electricity transmitting from the Thunder Protection shield erected on the tower flows through the marshy land and water source and the same creates health problems to those who are associated with it. On the basis of the same it was directed to the Electrical Inspector, Kottayam to report as to whether the electricity transmitting from the protection shield would become a threat to the life of the people and on the basis of the same he had submitted a report vide ref(4) after conducting inspection on the said place. As per the report it is mentioned that the thunder protection measures as per the required standards was maintained in the said tower and that since the tower is situated in wet land, the electric conducting capacity of the earth is good and hence it is reported that the same is not harmful to the adjacent people. ln addition to this it is to be noted that since another BSNL tower of 50 meter height is situated near to the said tower, and since the aforesaid tower is higher than the present tower, that BSNL tower would have more capacity to capture the electricity caused due to thunder and to transmit the same to earth. Hence it is reported by the Electrical Inspector, Kottayam that the chance of transmission of electricity by thunder from the said lndus Tower is low. Hence it is reported by the Electrical Inspector, Kottayam that the chance of transmission of electricity by thunder from the said lndus Tower is low. Since it has been clarified that the mobile tower have been constructed by abiding to all legal conditions and also since the Termcell authority have clarified that the radiation from the concerned tower is within the allowable limit and also since it is clarified that the construction of the tower would not in any way affect the health of the local people near the tower and that since the digital connectivity is very important for the future development activities of Kerala, it is hereby decided to grant permission for the future construction work of the tower. In the above circumstances it is ordered that the subsequent construction process of the said tower built by the Indus Tower Ltd company on the property belonging to Thelliyil Radhamony, bearing survey no. 77/15-A-A3 of the 4th ward of Vaikkom Corporation, Naduvillae village is hereby granted on the basis of the approval of District Telecom committee. Sd/- District Collector” 19. As rightly contended by Sri.Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel for respondent No.3, writ petitioner has participated in the proceedings before the District Collector. Though the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that a tower is already in existence and there is no need for another tower, such contentions cannot be countenanced. Respondent No.3 has obtained necessary permission from the competent authorities. Therefore, prayers sought for by the writ petitioner cannot be granted. In view of the above discussion and decisions, in particular the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cellular Operators Association of India (cited supra), this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.