High Court: Specify mobile tower safety regulations in residential areas

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, March 19

Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the state of Punjab to specify whether safety conditions, such as obtaining no-objection certificate from residents’ welfare associations, have been incorporated in the rules on erecting mobile towers in residential areas.

The Bench of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh also directed the submission of an affidavit on the issue by an officer of Additional Chief Secretary’s level. For the purpose, the Bench gave the state three-days time.

The Bench has already stayed the installation of towers atop residential buildings in the state, after holding that its slapdash setting up may put the lives and properties of the people in danger.

As the case came up for resumed hearing, the Bench asserted the Allahabad High Court had observed in the case of ‘Asha Mishra versus State of UP and seven others’ that the state had framed building byelaws with reference to powers provided under the provisions of the Urban Planning and Development Act.

The Bench noticed that the byelaws made it clear that permission was accorded to the service provider only upon submission of the proposed tower’s layout plan prepared by an architect registered with the Council of Architects, along with a structural safety certificate.

The service provider was required to obtain an NOC from the residents’ welfare association and the byelaws strictly prohibited the installation of towers on buildings illegally erected or situated in narrow lanes. The byelaws further required the service operator and the landlord of the premises to submit a joint affidavit indemnifying against any human or property loss which may occur.

“A query has been put to state counsel whether similar conditions have been incorporated in the rules relating to erecting mobile towers in the residential area. He prays for some time to seek instructions from the department concerned,” the Bench observed.

Earlier during the proceedings, senior advocate Chetan Mittal on behalf of a respondent prayed for the vacation of the interim order dated March 3. He submitted that detailed guidelines dated December 7, 2020,

had already been framed by the state government in light of the rules issued by the Ministry of Communications (Department of Telecommunications).