While refusing to give mandamus to the respondents for transferring the Cell Tower to another location, on Friday (15 January) the Uttarakhand High Court said that it is neither the charge nor the authority of the Court to run the administration.
The plea lodged by one Samay Sharma, who moved the court, was heard by the Bench of Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan and Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, aggrieved with the fact that Indus Towers Ltd. (respondent no. 5) was granted permission to erect a Mobile Tower in Anganwadi Campus, Shivlok Colony, Ramnagar, Raipur, Dehradun.
The Mobile Tower, submitted to the Court by the petitioner’s counsel, may adversely affect not only the children attending the Anganwadi Campus but also those residing in the colony’s residential region.
It was, therefore, demanded that the State of Uttarakhand, District Magistrate, Dehradun, Dehradun Smart City Limited, the Development Authority of Mussoorie Dehradun and Nagar Nigam, Dehradun should be ordered to move the Cell Tower to some other site.
If there is some bar in the statute, this Court asked the lawyer for the applicant, which forbids the construction of a Mobile Tower and requires the respondents to erect it? The lawyer honestly acknowledged to this question that there is no bar in the statute.
The court said,
“It is neither the authority nor the charge of this Court to run the ad mensuration. Where a Mobile Tower should be erected is also a choice that has got to be taken by the respondents themselves. Therefore, no mandamus is issued to the three respondents for shifting the Mobile Tower to another place.”
The Court, however, granted the petitioner the freedom to file a representation with the respondents and ordered them to vote on the representation. Owing the petitioner, the right to hear and to hear all his questions about the building of the Tower.
The Court further ordered the respondents to eventually pass a reasoned order.
“The respondents shall carry out the exertion within three weeks of receipt of the rendition to be filed by the applicant,” the court said.”
Under the instructions, the petition for writing was disposed of.