IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

No Power with Grampanchayat to Stop Mobile Tower Work After NOC Issuance - Bombay High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court declared on 20th July 2023, that a Grampanchayat, after having issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC), has no authority to then pass a resolution instructing the cessation of mobile tower construction.

The case, involving Indus Towers Ltd., Pune (Formerly, Bharti Infratel Ltd., Pune) and the Grampanchayat of Chikhalhol, Tal. Khanapur, Dist. Sangli, revolved around the legality of a resolution that had halted the erection of a mobile tower due to health concerns raised by local villagers.

“The role of the Grampanchayat in the matter of erection of mobile tower in the vicinity of the Grampanchayat... is confined to only issuing of No Objection Certificate in terms of the Government Resolution dated 11th December 2015,” noted Justices SUNIL B. SHUKRE and RAJESH S. PATIL, stating that once an NOC has been issued, the Grampanchayat “loses control over the subject of erection of mobile tower.”

The court also considered the villagers’ apprehensions about potential harmful effects of the tower’s radiation, but found these to be unfounded, citing a lack of reliable scientific evidence. They quoted a past ruling, “jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised on the basis of apprehensions, which are not rooted in facts and which are not supported by reliable scientific material.”

Consequently, the court quashed the Grampanchayat’s resolution and directed them not to obstruct the operation of the mobile tower as long as it is in accordance with the law. The ruling has important implications for the telecommunication infrastructure, affirming that after issuing an NOC, Grampanchayats cannot halt the installation of mobile towers based on non-scientific apprehensions.

Date of Decision:20th July, 2023

Indus Towers Ltd., Pune (Formerly, Bharti Infratel Ltd., Pune)  vs Grampanchayat,

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Indus_Vs_Grampanchyat_20July23_PHHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News