- (1.) ALOKE Chakrabarti, J. The order dated 28-6-1999 passed by the appellate authority and the order dated 27-10-1998 passed by the Cantonment Executive Of ficer for removing the antenna tower set up by the petitioner are challenged here.
(2.) COUNTER-affidavit and supplemen tary counter-affidavits have been filed and the petitioner filed rejoinder-affidavit. Heard Mr. Sunil Ambwani, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohammad Isa Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, learned counsel ap pearing for respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that for setting up the antenna tower the petitioner approached the respondent No. 2 and its authorities and when the communication came about no requirement of permission, antenna tower was set up on the rooftop of the concerned building for providing effective mobile telephone service. Said installation was made in the year 1996. The Cantonment Board on 24-9-1998 resolved taking action under Section 126 of the Cantonment Act and notice dated 27-10-1-998 was issued accordingly to remove the antenna lower.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no legal require ment of any permission for setting up such antenna tower on a rooftop of a building. The impugned notice has been issued upon a resolution which was taken without giving the petitioner any opportunity or notice. Reference has been made to Sec tion 126 of the Cantonment Act for con tending that the preconditions of the said provision are not existing for directing the petitioner to remove the structure and its viability has not at all been considered either with or without any further measures. Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 contended that petitioner has made out a case of no requirement of permission but the documents disclosed along with the counter-affidavit show that the petitioner obtained the no objection on a request with regard to aluminium structure and with regard to steel structure of the anten na tower request was rejected by the respondents. It has further been con tended that Section 126 clearly provides power to the authorities relating to building and such building includes the antenna tower set up on it roof top. It has further been contended that security of the life of the people as also of the structure has been considered by the technical persons as ap pears from Annexures 3 and 4 to the counter-affidavit and, therefore, this writ petition should be dismissed.;