IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2355 OF 2015 Between: C. Ramanatha Reddy, S/o. Ramachandra Reddy, Hindu, aged about 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.17-89-6-7-3-A, N.V.R. Layout, Rajeev Nagar, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad. 2. The Madanapalli Municipality, Rep.by its Commissioner, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. 3. M/s. Reliance JIO Infocomm Limited, Rep.by its Managing Director, Office at No,204, Lakeshore Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 4. Smt. G. Umadevi, W/o. Venkata Ramana, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 17-89-6-7-3, NVR Layout, Road No.15, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in ROC No. 1101/2014/G1, dated 13.01.2015 granting permission to the 3rd respondent to install roof top tower (cell Tower) in the premises of the 4th respondent, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to GO Ms. No. 380 (MA) Municipal Administration Department, dated 01.08.2013 and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings ROC No.1101/2014/G1, dated 13.01.2015 of the 2nd respondent by restraining the 3rd respondent from erecting the cell tower there to. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 3139 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order of the 2nd respondent vide ROC No. 1101/2014/G1, dated 13.01.2015, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: MS. JAGARLAMUDI ANJANA PRIYA, REPRESENTING SRI K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SMT. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI (SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI HEMACHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent No.4; — The Court made the following: ORDER 1 APHC010194852015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) BSs [3333] FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 2355/2015 Between: ...PETITIONER C. Ramanatha Reddy AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KSRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.P HEMACHANDRA 2.Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, Standing Counsel For Municipalities 3.GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (AP) 4.MD SALEEM 5.J N BHUSHAN The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “...to issue a writ or direction more particuiariy one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the impugned proceedings of the 2^^ respondent in ROC.No.1101/2014/G1, dated 13.01.2015 granting permission to the 3"^ respondent to install roof top tower cell Tower in the premises of the 4^ respondent is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.380 (MA) Municipal Administration Department dated 01.08.2013 and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings ROC.No.1101/2014/G1, dated 13.01.2015 of the 2"'' respondent by restraining the 3'"^ respondent from erecting the cell tower... ” \ \ f k ■: i \ 2. Ms.Jagarlamudi Anjana Priya learned counsel representing Mr.K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.V.Sireesha Rani, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 24.08.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3341 of 2019. 3. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 24.08.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3341 of 2019, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned TERM Cell of DoT by way of a fresh representation for redressal of his grievance, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On the petitioner’s approaching the said Cell, the same shall be considered and disposed of by 3 the said authority/Cell in accordance with the procedure established by law, however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondents 3 & 5 also and communicate the decision to the petitioner. No order as to costs. Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order, dated 24.08.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3341 of 2019 to this order. 4. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- A. VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TfON OFFICER //TRUE COPY// SEC To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner, Madanapalli Municipality, Madanapalli, Chittoor District. 3. One CC to Sri K Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, SC for Municipalities) [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri P Hemachandra, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Md Saleem Advocate [OPUC 7. Two CCs to GP for General Administration, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. One CC to Sri J N Bhushan, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Three CD Copies (Along with a copy of order dt. 24.08.2020 in WP No. 3341/2019) TF If' HIGH COURT DATED:03/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.2355 of 2015 50F 1 2 FEB 2C25 do ^ . Current Section DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO WRIT PETITION No.3341 of 2019 ORDER: This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief/s: “..to issue a Writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2'''* respondent in issuing provisional NOC for installation of 4G services and New Telecommunication Tower at D.No.76-14- 95/1, Netaji School Road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada to the 3''‘i and 4'^ respondents as illegal, arbitrary, violative of guidelines for issue of clearance for installation of New Telecommunication Infrastructure Towers, violative of provisions of the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Act and consequently direct the 2"'* respondent to cancel the provisional No Objection Certificate, dated 24.01.2019 issued to the 3'''* respondent for installation of New Telecommunication Infrastructure Tower at D.No.76-14- 95/1, Netaji School Road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada and pass such other or further orders..” Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the 2^^ respondent. Perused the record. The grievance of the petitioners is with regard to establishment of the subject cell tower in a residential locality and their apprehension is with regard to the power emissions/radiations, which may endanger the health of the residents of the locality. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the grievance of the petitioners would be redressed if a 2 direction is given to the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation, dated 30.02.2019, of the petitioners in accordance with the procedure established by law. Learned standing counsel brings to the notice of the Court G.O.Ms.No.l46, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M2) Department, dated 19.06.2015, and submits that as per the contents thereof, if any citizen has a grievance with regard to power emissions or radiations, all such complaints regarding radiation related technical details shall be dealt with by the Telecom Enforcement and Resources Monitoring (TERM) Cell of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), Government of India and, therefore, the petitioners have to approach the said Cell for redressal of their grievance. Learned counsel for the petitioners endorses the said submissions. Recording the submissions of both the sides, this Court in the interests of justice felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned TERM Cell of DoT by way of a fresh representation for redressal of their grievance. within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the petitioners approaching the said Cell, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the said authority/Cell in accordance with the procedure established by law, however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondents 3 to 5 also and 3 There shall be no communicate the decision to the petitioners, order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. M.GANGA RAO, J 24.08.2020 EPS