'Must Be Left To Wisdom Of Govt': Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Removal Of Mobile Towers For Maintaining Public Health

Relying on the decision of a Division Bench in Asha Mishra v. State of UP & Ors.;2017 (1) UPLBEC 261, the Court held,

"Such matters must be left to the mature wisdom of the Government or the implementing agency. It is their forte. In such cases, if the situation demands, the courts should take only a detached decision based on the pattern of the well settled principles of administrative law."

In Asha Mishra (supra), the High Court had examined the issue whether mobile towers have a deleterious effect due to EMF radiation. The Court was faced with two conflicting researches.

A report by one Prof. Girish Kumar stated that there is imminent danger to human health and safety caused by EMF radiation. Another report submitted by a Committee constituted by the High Court stated that there is no material which justified the conclusions arrived at by Prof. Kumar.

In view of such conflicting scientific reports on one hand, and the issue being related to public health and safety on the other, the Court proceeded to peruse the findings and recommendations of DOT, the Parliamentary Standing Committee as well as the WHO.

It noted that all the experts had unanimously voiced their opinion that the apprehensions as to threat to health and life are not justifiable.

Accordingly, the Court had observed,

"Bearing in mind the present conclusions and findings on the subject as expressed by experts across the board we find that there exists no justification for the submission of a present and imminent danger or threat to human health from the radiation emitted by mobile towers and BTS's. We further note that the studies undertaken both in India as well as by other international organizations have unanimously opined that the emissions from these equipments are minuscule and do not warrant the anxiety or fear which is sought to be generated in this batch of petitions."

In the instant case, the Petitioner Amarjit Samuel Datt had filed a PIL being aggrieved by erection of a mobile tower and 4G Base Transmitting Station adjacent to his residence.

He contended that the tower is located in the densely populated area and the emission of radiation from the tower has adverse effect on the health of the petitioner and his family members and the people living nearby.

At the outset, the Bench comprising of Justices Manish Mathur and Ritu Raj Awasthi said that the matter shall be treated in the Miscellaneous Bench jurisdiction as the Petitioner is himself an aggrieved party.

Thereafter, it held that in view of the findings of the High Court in Asha Mishra (supra), the instant case deserves to be dismissed.

The Court declined the argument raised by the Petitioner that the said case is distinguishable from the instant case on the ground that in that case under challenge was the installation of mobile towers and 4G Base Transmitting Towers being established in the entire State of UP.

The Bench opined,

"pith and substance of the issues raised in the writ petition are by and large the same as have been framed by the Court while deciding the case of Smt. Asha Mishra (Supra) and as such the judgment of Smt. Asha Mishra (Supra) covers the controversy involved in the instant writ petition."

So far as the contention of the Petitioner that the advisory on the use of mobile towers considering the impact on wildlife including birds and bees are not followed is concerned, the Court observed that they are only advisory and not mandatory in nature.

So far as the contention of the Petitioner that the question raised in the Parliament and the answers to those questions given by the Ministry of Telecommunication have not been considered are concerned, the Court held that the discussion made in the Parliament are not to be considered while deciding the case in a judicial Court.

Lastly, the Court said, "petitioner has not been able to show that the erection and operation of the impugned mobile tower and 4G Base Transmitting Station by the opposite party no.7 is in contravention of any order or direction of the State Government or any other authority" and dismissed the petition.

Advocates Abhishek Singh and Prashant Kumar appeared for Petitioner.

Senior Advocate JN Mathur with Advocate Aakash Prasad appeared for private-Respondent.

Assistant Solicitor General of India SB Pandey with Advocate Ambrish Rai (for Union of India).

Case Title: Amarjit Samuel Datt v. Union of India & Ors.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order