The Madras High Court today upheld the order of Puducherry Collector to remove all cell phone towers erected within a radius of 500 metres from central jail as it rendered jammers inside the jail ineffective and helped inmates make calls.
Upholding the order, Justice K K Sasidharan said "while considering the legality and correctness of the order passed by the District Magistrate, the background facts and law and order situation prevailing in the Union Territory also should be looked into....."
The Judge said the Collector was of the prima facie view that erection of mobile towers without licence in public place would amount to unlawful obstruction and was also of the view that it was only on account of the location of mobile towers, the jammers were made ineffective helping the inmates make calls without any difficulty, which was found to be nuisance.
Instead of approaching the Collector, the companies rushed to the court with a view to stalling all further proceedings, the judge said.
It was open to the companies to submit their explanation before the Collector, the judge said and dismissed the petitions filed by various cell phone companies including Bharti Airtel Limited challenging the order of the Collector, also the District Magistrate.
The Puducherry government had decided to remove the towers following allegation that some convicts in the jail were calling merchants and threatening them for money from mobile phones illegally posessed by them.
The petitioners contended that towers were erected and commissioned long ago and the District Collector erred in invoking the provisions of CrPc to remove the towers.
"Section 133 of Criminal Procedure is a code by itself. It gives wide powers to the Executive Magistrate in the matter of public nuisance. The term 'nuisance' cannot be given a restricted meaning. The provision gives an enlarged meaning to the word in as much as even unlawful obstruction would come within the meaning of public nuisance," the court said.
The judge while passing interim orders on the petitions on October 3 last, had directed the Inspector General (Jail) to get instructions from the mobile firms on the feasibility of providing jammers by the companies at their own cost.
The matter was taken up for hearing on merits by the Court as the service providers retracted from their promise that they will erect full-fledged Jammers at their own cost.
