HYDERABAD, Sept 14: Sindh High Court Hyderabad Circuit Bench on Friday issued notices to the Secretary Communi-cation, District Nazim Jamshoro, Taluka Nazim Kotri, Area Manager of a cellphone company and Mithoo - contractor of the company - for September 27 on a constitutional petition filed by a resident of Daryabad Colony Kotri seeking directives against installation of phone tower in his area.

The petitioner said that he was living with his family including two children Nisha Hassan student of class-I, and Shoaib Hassan of class-VII in Shah Latif Colony Kotri who along with 300 other students study in a school situated in the colony.

He said the area was poverty-stricken and lacks standard schools with the exception of the above mentioned institute which strives for quality education along with reasonable fee structure.

People of the area, particularly parents and school management were shocked to find respondents area manger of the mobile phone company and its contractor Mithoo excavating earth for installation of 100-foot tall pole, too close to the school where petitioner’s children study, he said.

He maintained residents and school management requested the respondents that since the area was congested and more than six schools were functioning therefore they should avoid installing tower here and shift it to some desolated area.

He said they told the company manager that it will save their children and other people from hazardous effects of the waves whereas it could also collapse during strong winds and rainy season. The petitioner also informed the manager about the casualty by a similar tower collapse in Tando Mohammad Khan and Karachi.

He further said the respondents were insisting to install the tower in front of the school as such there was imminent danger to the lives of students and public. He stated no plan or permission had been sought by respondents from the concerned authority. He maintained that he and other people approached local administration particularly Nazims but they took no steps to stop installation of tower and redress grievances of the petitioner.

He said he was an aggrieved person within the ambit of Article 199 of the Constitution and his right been infringed. He said under such compelling circumstances the petitioner had no other efficacious and alternate remedy left but to move the court to invoke its constitutional jurisdiction. He prayed the court to declare installation of tower in education and residential vicinities by the respondent four and five as unwarranted and illegal.

He said respondents should be directed to refrain from installing the tower of any cellphone company near the school and densely populated area.