[2025:RJ-JP:22232-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22412/2018 Vikas Samiti Mahaveer Nagar Second, Maharani Farm Durgapura Jaipur A Registered Society Bearing Registration No.309/jaipur 2005-06, Office At Rameshwar Mahadev Mandir, Basement Mahaveer Nagar Second Jaipur, Rajasthan Through Its Authorized Signatory Shri Suresh Chand Luhadia S/o G.c. Luhadia, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of 140 , Mahaveer Nagar Second Maharani Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Director Local Bodies, Local Self Department, 22-Godown, Near Civil Lines Phatak, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Municipal Corporation, Jaipur Through Its Commissioner. 3. The Dy. Commissioner (Revenue-1), Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Through Its Commissioner. 5. M/s Reliance Gio Infocom Limited, (M/s Infutel Broadband Services Limited, Iiird Floor, Maker Chamber Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Through Its Authorized Officer/director. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 27/05/2025 None present on behalf of the petitioner to argue the matter. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issue involved in this petition has been considered and decided by the [2025:RJ-JP:22232-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-22412/2018] Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Prem Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 16.04.2019 in D.B. (PIL) Petition No.22718/2018, wherein following order has been passed:- “This public interest litigation petition has been filed by three petitioners, Prem Singh; Ramveer Singh and Suresh Chand inter alia with the prayer that Respondent No. 4, Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Bharatpur be directed to withdraw the order/NOC dated 02.05.2018 qua site BRPR-0080 (RTM), in the interest of justice and in case, he does not do so, the same be quashed and set aside. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents are seeking to install mobile tower, which is located at a distance of 40-50 metres from Primary School (Upper Secondary Adarsh Vidhya Mandir, Kesav Nagar); at a distance of 75-80 metres from State Level Stadium (Lohagarh Stadium) as also at a distance of 80-85 metres from Government Hospital (Kusth Rog). Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Justice I.S. Israni (Retd.) & 3 Anr. Vs. Union of India & Others, 2013 (2) WLC (Raj.) 602. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 has disputed the aforesaid assertion of learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that according to him, actual distance between the proposed mobile tower and the stadium is 190 metres; the same from the Leprosy Centre is 280 metres and from the school, it is 90 metres. Learned counsel submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in Justice I.S. [2025:RJ-JP:22232-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-22412/2018] Israni (Retd.) & 3 Others (supra) has merely directed that mobile towers should not be allowed to be erected in the premises of the hospitals and the colleges and within the vicinity of 500 metres from the jail premises. Apart from that, certain other objections were also raised but the policy/bye laws proposed by the State were upheld. He has also submitted that so as to bring the bye laws/policy of the State Government in conformity with the judgment of this Court, Clause (iii) was inserted in Point No. 3 of order dated 06.02.2017 issued by the Department of Urban Development and Housing, Rajasthan. The aforesaid Clause (iii) of Point No. 3 of Order dated 06.02.2017, upon which reliance has been placed, was substituted vide Order dated 16.08.2017 issued by the Joint Secretary-I, Department of Urban Development, Rajasthan, which reads as under: “(iii) The licensee shall be permitted to erect/install telegraph infrastructure on open land including private/khatedari lands, lands and buildings of Government or Government owned/controlled Statutory or Non-statutory institutions/bodies or at other public/private locations. Provided that in view of decision of the Hon’ble High Court in D.B. PIL Petition No. 2774/2012 decided on 27.11.2012 (which is subject to outcome of appeals pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court) mobile towers will not be installed within the premises of schools/colleges, hospitals, sports/play grounds, within 500 meters radius of jail campus and within distance of 100 meters from notified archeological and heritage properties/sites.” [2025:RJ-JP:22232-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-22412/2018] In view of above, it cannot be said that NOC granted to Respondent No. 5 for installation of mobile tower was in breach of aforesaid policy. Moreover, the petitioners have themselves not given any declaration that they are not using mobile phones/ cell phones, which in their perception are hazardous to the health of the human beings, although that is still debatable and has yet not been proven conclusively. When the people at large are so accustomed to use of the mobile phones/ cell phones, not having the mobile towers installed at the same time in the name of public interest would be contradiction in terms. We see no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.” In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra). (ANAND SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /101