The Bombay High Court recently observed that mobile phones are no longer a luxury but an inevitable necessity, while setting aside a gram panchayat's decision to revoke permission for installation of a telecom tower [Indus Tower Limited and anr v. Gram Panchayat, Tanang and Ors].
The panchayat had opposed the construction of the tower in a Sangli village on the grounds of alleged health hazards due to radiation. The Court emphasised that mobile towers “cannot be summarily dispensed with on misplaced information”.
The Bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Advait M Sethna stated,
“We may observe that in the modern age the inescapable reality is that mobile phones are no longer a luxury but an inevitable necessity, it be in the urban areas or in the remotest part of the country...to facilitate seamless communication and ensure remote areas are not deprived of this technological revolution, mobile towers cannot be summarily dispensed with on misplaced information.”
The case involved Indus Tower Limited, a telecom infrastructure provider registered with the Department of Telecommunications, and Ashok Yashwant Chougule, a landowner in Tanang village, Sangli district.
The gram panchayat had initially issued a no-objection certificate (NOC) in December 2023 for installing a mobile tower on Chougule’s land. However, following complaints from a group of villagers claiming health hazards from radiation, the panchayat passed a resolution on August 8, 2024, cancelling the NOC.
The petitioners challenged this resolution in the High Court, claiming it was illegal and violative of natural justice.
Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the resolution was arbitrary, unsupported by scientific evidence and passed without giving the petitioners an opportunity to be heard.
He submitted that telecom infrastructure falls under the exclusive purview of Central authorities like the Department of Telecommunications and is governed by statutory frameworks, including the Telecommunications Act, 2023, and relevant government resolutions that prohibit the cancellation of NOCs once issued.
In contrast, counsel for the panchayat maintained that the body acted in the larger public interest, responding to genuine health concerns of villagers, and passed a reasoned resolution accordingly.
Rejecting the panchayat’s arguments, the Court found the resolution to be “arbitrary, in breach of well-settled principles of audi alteram partem”, and passed “without any notice and hearing to the petitioner.”
"Except for citing the complaint which made some unsubstantiated apprehensions about the dangers of radiation from the mobile tower, there is no acceptable much less lawful any reason in passing the impugned resolution so as to render such decision lawful."
It added that there was “no scientific material” to support the health concerns raised and that the panchayat had no jurisdiction to revoke the NOC once granted, as per the applicable government policies.
The Court quashed the gram panchayat’s resolution and restrained the villagers from obstructing the installation and operation of the mobile tower.
Senior Advocate Anil Anturkar along with Advocate Sugandh Deshmukh appeared for Indus Towers.
Advocates Tejas Dande, Sarvesh Deshpande and Pratik Sabrad appeared for the village and its officials.
[Read Order]