Allowed

Atc Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Mar 2023WP/4436/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed by ATC Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited seeking a mandatory writ of mandamus directing the police to provide protection for the erection of roof top poles in Nellore. The court directed the respondent police station to ensure protection upon written request, citing a previous similar order in W.P. No. 4375 of 2020.

What did the court decide?

Director the 4th respondent to provide police protection to the petitioner for the completion of erection work of Roof Top Poles based on a written request.

Atc Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited Vs… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY Of MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

jo S'

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 4436 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

ATC Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited, IV Floor, Gowra Plaza, Door No. 1-8304-307/381/444, SP Road, Begumpet, Secunderabad, Telangana- 500003 Rep. by its Circle Legal Head, Sri Ashish Sharma PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its PrI Secretary For Home, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Andhra Pradesh-522237.

¶12

2 The Superintendent of Police, Santhi Nagar, Batwadipalem, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh-524003. „

¶13

¶14

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nellore Urban,Opp. Railway Station, Subedarpet, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh- 524001.

¶15

4 The Station House Officer, Navabpet TwoTown police station Lakshmi Puram Main Rd, Mukundapuram, Nawabpet, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh- 524002.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4*” Respondent in not providing Police Protection for erection of Roof Top Poles at in H.No.28-3-1188, Survey No.334/2 and 334/1 at Zahir Hussain Nagar, Soap Factory Area, Shalivahani Nagar (Mallithota), Nellore Bit-ll, Nellore Municipal Corporation, SPSR Nellore District, SRO-Nellore, Andhra Pradesh-524002, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of settled principles of Natural Justice.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may he pleased to direct the 4*” Respondent to provide Police Protection for erection of Roof Top Pole at H.No.28-3-1188, Survey No.334/2 and 334/1 at Zahir Hussain Nagar, Soap Factory Area, Shalivahani Nagar (Mallithota), Nellore Bit-ll, Nellore Municipal Corporation, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh-524002 pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. T S MURTHY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR HOME

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

•4

¶24

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶25

Writ Petition No.4436 of 2023

¶26

Order:

¶27

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus seeking to declare the action of 4*” respondent-station House Officer, Navabpet II Town Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, in not providing police protection to the petitioner for erection of Roof Top Poles at H.No.28-3-1188, Survey No.334/2 and 334/1 of Zahir Hussain Nagar, Soap Factory Area, Shalivahani Nagar (Mallithota), Nellore Bit-II, Nellore Municipal Corporation, SPSR Nellore district, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

¶29

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as there is an obstruction from the neighbours at the work spot in relation to the erection work of Roof Top Poles being carried on by the petitioner. they sought protection from the Police, but the Police are not providing any police protection to them. Therefore, he would submit that in view of the earlier order passed by this Court in a similar situation in W.P.No.4375 of 2020, he requests to pass a similar order. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Home also would submit that in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4375 of 2020, appropriate direction may be given in this petition.

¶31

¶32

Therefore, in view of the earlier order passed -by this Court in W.P.No.4375 of 2020, this Writ Petition is allowed directing 4’*’ respondent to provide Police protection to the petitioner for completion of their erection work of Roof Top Poles at H.No.28-3-1188, Survey No.334/2 and 334/1 of Zahir Hussain Nagar, Soap Factory Area, Shalivahani Nagar (Mallithota), Nellore Bit-II, Nellore Municipal Corporation, SPSR Nellore district, on the written request made by the petitioner to that effect. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶34

in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶35

Sd/- SHAIK MOHAMMED RAFI ASSISTANT REGI^AR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶36

SECTION

¶37

To, '"'® ®‘®‘® of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat

¶38

Bulldogs, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh -522237."-522237 pfadesTsSoo? ^^^^dipalem, Nellore, Andhra

¶39

Navabpet TwoTown police station Lakshmi Puram

¶40

c nno r?r o^^n^apurarn, Nawabpet, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh- 524002. 5. One CC to Sri. T S Murthy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶41

7 Two CoVopies of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶42

ijQKr

¶43

the Copy of the Order in WP.No.4375 of 2020)

HIGH COURT

DATED:02/03/2023

ORDER

WP.No.4436 of 2023

¶49

17 A'J 1 2323 J
Current Section
t

¶50

ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶51

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶52

WRIT PETITION No.4375 of 2020

¶53

ORDER:

¶54

The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 2"'* respondent in not providing police protection to the petitioner for erection of Telecommunication. Infrastructure Tower (TIT) at S.No.597, Yerraguntla Village & Mandal, Kadapa District, as illegal and arbitrary and violation of Section 33 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and for a consequential direction.

¶55

2. The petitioner’s case is that, the petitioner is an infrastructure company (IP-I) incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, came into existence on 20.11.2007, responsible for providing cell site towers / equipments in order to provide mobile coverage to the public at large through various cell operators in the country. The Central Government also granted necessary registration certificate to the petitioner to provide Telecom Infrastructure (IP-I) on Pan India basis including erstwhile, State of Andhra Pradesh. In the light of the registration certificate, the petitioner is required to erect and install mobile telecom equipment such as Ground Based Towers, Roof Top Towers and fixing of Antennas and signal Tran receiving equipment etc. and providing the same for the purpose of various telecom service providers. While so, the petitioner - company had identified place in the aforesaid survey number -in Yerraguntla Village & Mandal, Kadapa District, and after entering into lease and license agreement

¶56

¶57

with its owner, submitted an application dated 01.11.2019 to 3"* respondent, for grant of permission for erection of tower, duly complying all the requirements mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.l46 Municipal Administration &. Urban Development (M2) Department dated 19.06.2015 and accordingly, the 3”* respondent issued proceedings dated 04.11.2019 granting permission for erection of Telecommunication Infrastructure Tower (TIT).

¶58

While so, when the petitioner company representatives started erection of cell tower, the local people started resisting them from erecting the tower stating that the radiation which would be emanated from the tower would be dangerous to the people. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to give a representation to the 2"** respondent on 20.01.2020 seeking police protection, but till date the 2"*' respondent neither considered their representation nor provided

¶59

police protection.

¶60

Hence, this writ petition.

¶61

Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home, representing respondents 1 & 2 and Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, representing 3"* •respondent.

¶62

Learned counsel the petitioner would submit that so far the representation given by the petitioner on 20.01.2020 for providing police protection is not considered by 2"** respondent. He would further submit that the police are bound to provide protection, once

¶63

¶64

permission is granted by the authorities. In support of his contention,

¶65

he placed reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Crl.O.P.No. 14444 of 2019 dated 07.06.2019, wherein it was held thus:

¶66

This Court has consistently taken the view that no one can be prevented from erecting the cell phone towers on a mere apprehension about the effect of radiation from the cell phone tower. The apprehension does not have a scientific backing. Till a positive finding is given in this regard, cell phone towers cannot be prevented to be installed on mere apprehensions. 7. For the reasons stated above, there shall be a direction to the second respondent police to provide police protection to the petitioner for erection of the cell phone tower. The second respondent police shall ensure that the entire process goes on in a smooth manner, without giving raise to any law and order problem.

¶67

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2"** respondent to provide police protection to the petitioner for erection of Telecommunication Infrastructure Tower (TIT) at S.No.597, Yerraguntla Village & Mandal, Kadapa District and to ensure that the entire process will be done in a smooth manner without any scope for law and order problem. No costs.

¶68

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶69

U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶70

is"* February, 2020

¶71

PVD

Atc Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atc Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maddireddy Kond Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Gorikapudi Ankamma Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kakumanu Gopi Naga Venkata Manikanta Gupta Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Irala Sudhakar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ch Obulesu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Seerapu Mutyala Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh