Vavachan A. and others v Ragini Ravi and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date: 2020-10-23
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed. The court held that telecommunication towers are buildings under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 and a building permit was required; relying on Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat, the petition was dismissed and the PCB’s role under environmental laws remains available if pollution or health concerns arise.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Vavachan A.
K. Babu Rao
P.S. Nidheesh
Bindhu Santhosh
Sajith

Respondents

Ragini Ravi
Secretary, Devikulangara Grama Panchayath
Kerala State Pollution Control Board
Director, District Office, Pollution Control Board
Environmental Engineer, District Office Pollution Control Board
Deputy Director of Panchayath, Alappuzha
District Collector, Alappuzha
Indus Towers

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A.K. Alex

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioners, residents of Devikulangara Grama Panchayath, challenged a building permit granted for a telecommunication tower on a neighboring property. They contended that erection and operation of the tower would create health hazards for those living nearby and urged the court to interdict the project and direct authorities to enforce environmental safeguards. Ext.P1–Ext.P8 documents were relied upon to show complaints to the Panchayat, the district administration, and the Pollution Control Board, and to press for PCB consent for the tower and its generator. The second respondent informed the Panchayat that the permit was issued under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019; petitioners argued that the Rules also require PCB oversight in this context. The Pollution Control Board’s stand was that no PCB permission is required for erecting the tower, with permission for the generator needed only if it causes sound pollution; Ext.P8 was admitted as a mistaken communication. The court noted that a telecommunication tower is treated as a building under the 2019 Rules and that a building permit is therefore required for its erection. Relying on the decision in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat, the court dismissed the writ petition, holding there was no scientific basis to cancel the permit and that the PCB may act under the Air Act if pollution or health concerns arise.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) ActSection 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that erecting the telecommunication tower and its generator would pose health hazards to residents; Ext.P8 indicated PCB oversight and questioned the Panchayat’s reliance on the building permit. They urged the court to direct action and consider Ext.P4–P6 representations. They invoked Reliance Infocom Ltd. to emphasize environmental regulation and the Board’s authority as needed to address emissions and health concerns.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the telecommunication tower falls under building permits under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 and does not require PCB permission for the tower itself; PCB permission would be necessary for the generator only if it causes sound pollution. Ext.P8 was claimed to be a mistaken communication. The Board asserted that Section 21 of the Air Act does not apply because the tower is not an “industrial plant.” The court’s ultimate reasoning emphasized the building-rule classification and the absence of data to cancel the permit.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat	2006 (4) KLT 695	Positive	Cited to support that health/hazard concerns and emissions may be regulated; the court relies on this decision to deny cancellation of the license without scientific data and to uphold Board intervention where necessary.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.21476 OF 2020(H)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 VAVACHAN A., AGED 55 YEARS VALLATTORE HOUSE, PUTHUPALLY P.O. KAYAMKULAM.** - **2 K. BABU RAO, AISWARYA, PUTHUPALLY P.O. KAYAMKULAM.** - **3 P.S. NIDHEESH, VAYALVARATHUMADOM, PUTHUPALLY P.O. KAYAMKULAM.** - **4 BINDHU SANTHOSH, SAROVARAM, PUTHUPALLY,** ## **P.O. KAYAMKULAM.** - **5 SAJITH , UTHRAM, PUTHUPALLY P.O. KAYAMKULAM.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ALEX** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 RAGINI RAVI, D/O. RAVEENDRAN, THARANGAM, PUTHUPALLY P.O. KAYAMKULAM 690 527.** - **2 SECRETARY, DEVIKULANGARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUTHUPALLY P.O. KAYAMKULAM 690 527.** ..2.. ## W.P.(C) No. 21476 of 2020 - **3 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ALAPPUZHA 688 001.** - **4 DIRECTOR,** - **DISTRICT OFFICE, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ALAPPUZHA 688 001.** - **5 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ALAPPUZHA 688 001.** - **6 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH., ALAPPUZHA 688 001.** - **7 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA 688 001.** - **8 INDUS TOWERS, 8TH FLOOR, VANGARATH TOWERS, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI 682 025.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **GP. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-10-2020, THE COURT ON 23-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No. 21476 of 2020 ..3.. ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** ## **-------------------------------------** **W.P.(C) No.21476 of 2020** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of October, 2020** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioners are persons residing within the limits of Devikulangara Grama Panchayat. The first respondent is a person residing in the neighbourhood of the residences of the petitioners. The eighth respondent has obtained a building permit for erection of a telecommunication tower in the property of the first respondent. According to the petitioners, if the telecommunication tower proposed by the eighth respondent is permitted to be erected, the same would cause health hazards to the people residing near the tower including the petitioners. Ext.P1 is a complaint sent by the people in the W.P.(C) No. 21476 of 2020 ..4.. locality to the second respondent requesting him to take appropriate action in this regard. It appears that a copy of Ext.P1 complaint was forwarded to the sixth respondent, and in response to a query by the sixth respondent, the second respondent has informed the sixth respondent that building permit was issued to the eighth respondent in accordance with the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules. Ext.P3 is the communication issued in this regard by the second respondent to the sixth respondent. It is stated by the petitioners that the people in the locality, thereupon, preferred Ext.P4 representation to the seventh respondent, the District Collector, and the seventh respondent, in turn, referred the said representation to the sixth respondent. It is stated by the petitioners that on the said reference, the sixth respondent has issued Ext.P5 communication to one among the signatories to Ext.P4 representation informing that since building permit has been issued in terms of the rules in force, they are free to W.P.(C) No. 21476 of 2020 ..5.. approach the District Telecom Committee, if they are aggrieved by the decision of the panchayat. Aggrieved by the said stand taken by the sixth respondent, the petitioners preferred Ext.P6 representation to the fifth respondent, the Environmental Engineer attached to the concerned District Office of the Pollution Control Board and the fifth respondent forwarded the representation to the District Telecom Committee with a request to insist the eighth respondent to obtain permission of the Pollution Control Board for establishing and operating the telecommunication tower as also the generator to be installed for operating the telecommunication tower. The writ petition is filed thereafter challenging Ext.P3 communication issued by the second respondent. The petitioners also seek directions to the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 representation, directions to the second respondent to consider Ext.P1 representation and also directions to the seventh respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation. The W.P.(C) No. 21476 of 2020 ..6.. petitioners also seek a declaration that the second respondent has no authority to grant building permit for erection of a mobile tower in a densely populated area. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. 3. Placing reliance on Ext.P8 communication issued by the fifth respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that permission of the Pollution Control Board is required for erecting a telecommunication tower and the building permit obtained by the eighth respondent for erection of telecommunication tower without the permission of the Pollution Control Board is, therefore, unsustainable. It was also contended strenuously by the learned counsel that the telecommunication tower, if permitted to be operated, would cause health hazards to the people around the same and this Court shall, therefore, W.P.(C) No. 21476 of 2020 ..7.. interdict the erection of the same. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board submitted that permission of the Pollution Control Board is not required for erection of a telecommunication tower and that permission is required only for erecting the generator for operation of the telecommunication tower, if the same causes sound pollution. On being asked as to the reason for issuing Ext.P8 communication by the Pollution Control Board, after getting instructions, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that Ext.P8 is a communication issued by mistake. 5. A telecommunication tower is treated as a building in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat building Rules, 2019. A building permit is required to be obtained therefore, for the purpose of erecting a telecommunication tower. The petitioners do not have a case that the second respondent has not complied with the W.P.(C) No. 21476 of 2020 ..8.. provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 in the matter of granting the building permit for the telecommunication tower referred to in the writ petition. The provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 do not insist permission of the Pollution Control Board for obtaining building permit for erection of telecommunication tower. As such, the Panchayat cannot be blamed for having issued building permit to the eighth respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is in the light of Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, that the fifth respondent has issued Ext.P8 communication. Of course, Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act provides that no person shall, without the previous consent of the State Board, establish or operate any industrial plant in an air pollution control area. The telecommunication tower is not an industrial plant and as such, I do not think that Section 21 of W.P.(C) No. 21476 of 2020 ..9.. the said Act has any application. 7. Coming to the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that operation of the telecommunication would cause health hazards, it is seen that identical contention was repelled by this Court in **Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama Panchayat** , 2006 (4) KLT 695. **Reliance Infocom Ltd** was a case where the Panchayat concerned revoked the building permit granted for erection of a telecommunication tower on the ground that the same is likely to cause health hazards. This Court has clarified in the said judgment that even permission of the Pollution Control Board is required for installing the generator for operation of the telecommunication tower only if the same causes sound pollution. Paragraph 8 of the judgment read thus: “8. We notice that the Panchayat has as on today no scientific data or relevant materials to cancel the licence already granted on the ground that the installation of the W.P.(C) No. 21476 of 2020 ..10.. Tower would cause any health hazards. Licence granted has been cancelled by the Panchayat based on an apprehension that the radiation may cause health hazards to the people of the locality. Further Ext.P5 also says that installation of generator would cause sound pollution. Petitioner has not installed any generator as on today and if the installation of generator would cause any sound pollution, evidently Pollution Control Board can give appropriate direction and the petitioner will have to obtain necessary consent from the Pollution Control Board for installation of generators, so that it would not cause any sound pollution. So also, if the installation of Tower and the emission of electromagnetic waves causes any air pollution, affecting human health the Pollution Control Board can take appropriate measures under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1991. ” In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in the light of the decision of this Court in **Reliance Infocom Ltd** , the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. **Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE** ds 21.10.2020 W.P.(C) No. 21476 of 2020 ..11.. ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE NEARBY RESIDENTS OF 1ST RESPONDENTS PROPERTY WHICH INCLUDES SOME OF THE PETITIONERS TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIVED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT WHICH SHOWS THAT EXT P1 IS RECEIVED ON 1.6.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.6.2020 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTTION DAED 8.6.2020 SENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT, DISTRICT COLLECTOR BY THE NEARBY RESIDENTS OF 1ST RESPONDENTS PROPERTY INCLUDING PETITIONERS.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PANCHAYATH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ALAPPUZHA TO ONE RAJEEVKUMAR WHO IS THE FIRS SIGNATORY IN EXT. P4.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.6.2020 SENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE NEARBY RESIDENTS OF RESPONDENTS PROPERTY IN WARD NO. XIV ND XV OF DEVIKULANGARA PANCHAYATH INCLUDING PETITIONERS.** W.P.(C) No. 21476 of 2020 ..12.. **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT WHICH SHOWS THAT EXT P6 IS SENT TO DIRECTOR, POLLUTION CONTROL BORD ALAPPUZHA. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.7.2020 SENT BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA TO DISTRICT TELECOM COMMITTEE,**