This writ petition, in the form of public interest litigation, is filed against the installation of mobile tower by respondent no.8- a private company on the building of respondent no.9- a private individual.
According to the writ petitioner, health hazards can be created by virtue of such installation and he relied upon the Government Order of the year 2008. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.8 has contended before this Court that his case is governed by the Government Orders of the years 1998 and 1999 and there is a report of the World Health Organization and the Indian Council of Medical Research that there is no question of health hazards. However, the writ petitioner has relied upon a newspaper cutting, which shows 'three towers on one side'. So far as respondent no.4-Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Lucknow is concerned, he has contended before this Court that he is not the deciding authority with regard to the permission for installation, but recovery of tax.
According to us, the dispute appears to be amongst the private parties provided the permission has been obtained pursuant to any Government Order available at the time of installation of tower. Once it is installed with permission and, if there is anything to be disputed against such person at whose house it has been installed and by whom it has been installed, wrongly or erroneously or against any settled principle and norms, that is required to be decided by the fact finding Court and not by the writ court on the basis of such allegation.
It has further been contended by the respondents before us that the tower was installed with the permission and only for the purpose of installing the tower at the house of the writ petitioner, this type of allegation has been made and this public interest litigation has been filed. However, we do not want to go into such controversy. We want to say that this dispute appears to be private dispute between two private parties.
Accordingly, this public interest litigation cannot be held to be maintainable. Hence, the same is dismissed, however, without imposing any costs.
Order Date :- 10.5.2010 RKK/-