-
by sayum
22 December 2025 5:51 AM
“Fear is not a substitute for evidence... No one can be allowed to obstruct national infrastructure on the strength of misplaced apprehensions”, In a resounding affirmation of constitutional governance, infrastructure rights, and due process, the Bombay High Court delivered a powerful judgment, declaring that a Gram Panchayat cannot cancel a No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted for mobile tower installation based merely on unverified health fears or popular opposition.
The Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna ruled that the cancellation of the NOC—which was originally granted by the Gram Panchayat—violated principles of natural justice, lacked scientific basis, and was without jurisdiction under the applicable telecom laws and government policies.
The Court held: “The impugned resolution was passed merely on the basis of unsubstantiated complaints... without any material to support the decision that the radiation from the mobile tower would cause health hazard. This renders the action arbitrary and contrary to law.”
“To Be or Not To Be... Mobile Towers Are Not a Matter of Hamletian Dilemma, But Legal Necessity”
The Court began its judgment by invoking the words of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul from K.R. Ramaswamy v. Union of India, reminding that public fear alone cannot drive regulatory decisions:
“To be or not to be, or rather to have mobile towers or not, is no longer the question. There is no conclusive material to show ill-effects of radiation from mobile phone towers.”
The Court observed that the mobile tower in question—set up by Indus Tower Limited on the land of petitioner no. 2 in Tanang village, Miraj Taluka, Sangli—was almost complete after incurring significant construction expenditure, when the Gram Panchayat abruptly cancelled the NOC dated 4 December 2023, on the basis of public complaints alleging health risks from radiation.
“Cancellation Without Hearing Is an Affront to Due Process and the Constitution”
Terming the Panchayat’s action “an affront to the rule of law and administrative fairness”, the Court categorically held:
“We find that the impugned resolution... is passed without any notice and hearing to the petitioner. As civil rights were being prejudicially affected, the petitioners ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard.”
“In our opinion... there is substance in the submission that the impugned resolution is arbitrary, in breach of the well-settled principle of audi alteram partem.”
“Panchayats Cannot Revoke NOCs at Whim – They Have No Such Power Under Law”
The Court found that once the Gram Panchayat had granted a valid NOC under the Government Resolution dated 11 December 2015, it lost authority to revoke it. As per Clause 4 of the GR, the Panchayat’s power ends upon grant of NOC.
“There is no provision whatsoever in the Government Resolution conferring power upon the Gram Panchayat to revoke the NOC... The revocation is ultra vires and legally unsustainable.”
“The Panchayat acted beyond its jurisdiction and without lawful authority.”
“Public Health Concerns Must Be Rooted in Science, Not Speculation”
Rejecting the complaints lodged by villagers on health concerns as speculative and unscientific, the Court said:
“Respondent no.1 appears to have taken such complaints at face value and without verifying the veracity of such claims through any scientific material... The resolution suffers from non-application of mind.”
“No material has been placed on record by the Panchayat to justify the conclusion that radiation from the tower posed any health risk.”
Referring to judgments from other High Courts—including Biju K. Balan v. State of Maharashtra, Kapil Choudhary v. Union of India, and Indus Tower Ltd. v. Grampanchayat—the Court observed that no conclusive scientific evidence exists to prove that radiation from telecom towers, operating within prescribed limits, causes health harm.
“Section 14(4) of Telecommunication Act, 2023 Is a Bar to Coercive Action by Local Bodies”
Citing Section 14(4) of the Telecommunication Act, 2023, the Court emphasized that no coercive action such as sealing, obstruction, or revocation of telecom infrastructure can be taken by local bodies unless there is a public emergency or natural disaster—which were not present in this case.
“No such exceptional circumstances existed... The Gram Panchayat’s actions are in direct contravention of Section 14(4).”
“Mobile Connectivity Is a Public Necessity – Local Bodies Cannot Disrupt National Infrastructure Projects”
In a sweeping observation on the critical role of telecom networks, the Court stated:
“In modern times, mobile phones are no longer a luxury but a necessity. To deny such infrastructure based on unverified fears is contrary to national interest.”
Citing judgments of the Kerala, Gujarat, and Himachal Pradesh High Courts, the Court reiterated that mere apprehension without data cannot defeat infrastructure rights.
“Reason Is the Heartbeat of Every Order – This Resolution Was Lifeless”
The impugned resolution lacked reasoning or evidence and violated every expectation of a reasoned administrative decision. The Court invoked the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. to assert:
“The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity... and without the same, the order becomes lifeless.”
“The impugned resolution cites vague complaints but no evidence... It fails the test of rationality and is hence unconstitutional.”
“Panchayats Must Not Obstruct Legally Sanctioned Infrastructure”
Setting aside the Panchayat’s Resolution No. 3 dated 8 August 2024, the Court unequivocally allowed the writ petition and directed:
“The respondents shall not obstruct the installation or operation of the mobile tower, which was lawfully sanctioned.”
The petition was allowed in full, with a strong message that regulatory power cannot be exercised arbitrarily, emotionally, or politically—especially when national infrastructure is at stake.
Date of Decision: June 6, 2025
