Dismissed

N.Natarajan v. the Executive Officer

Madras HC15 Jul 2019WP/13774/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to restrain public authorities from sanctioning cell phone towers on disputed village land, alleging harm to life and property. The Court dismissed the petition as infructuous because the specific respondent representing the tower operator clarified there was no intention to erect a tower there.

What did the court decide?

None granted as the petition was dismissed as infructuous due to lack of intention to erect the towers.

N.Natarajan Vs the Executive Officer — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.07.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.13774 of 2010

¶6

N.Natarajan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Executive Officer,
Selection Grade Town Panchayat,
Sankari,
Salem District.
2.The Assistant Engineer,
Operation & Maintenance,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Sanniyasipatti,
Salem District.
3.The District Collector,
Salem District,
Salem.
4.The Tahsildar,
Sankari Taluk,
Sankari,
Salem District.
5.The General Manager,
Bharti Airtel Limited,
Bharti Towers,
101, Santhome High Road,
Chennai-600 028.
6.Raja Gounder
7.GTL Infrastructure Ltd.,
Ground & First Floor,
Maestro House, MIDC Buildings,
No.2, Sector-2, Millennium,
Business Park, Mahape,
Navi, Mumbai-400 710.
[R-7 impleaded as per order
dated 30.07.2010] ... Respondents

¶7

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶8

Prayer : The writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 herein from granting permission or sanction to the respondents 5 & 6 herein to erect cell phone towers in S.No.31/2D6 Sankari Village, Salem District detrimental to the interest of the petitioner's life and property by considering the representation dated 11.06.2010.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Manokaran

¶10

For Respondents : Ms.K.Bhuvaneswari, Addl.Govt. Pleader for Respondents R1, R3 & R4 Mr.S.K.Rameshwar for R2 M/s.Ramalingam Associates for R5 Mr.Srinath Sundaram for R6 & R7

¶11

This writ petition has been filed seeking for an issuance of writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 herein from granting permission or sanction to the respondents 5 & 6 herein to erect cell phone towers in S.No.31/2D6 Sankari Village, Salem District detrimental to the interest of the petitioner's life and property by considering the representation dated 11.06.2010.

¶12

2.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent submitted that there is no intention to erect the cell phone tower in the disputed land mentioned in the writ petition.

¶13

3.In view of the above, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs.

¶14

Assistant Registrar

¶15

//True Copy//

¶16

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶17

¶18

1.The Executive Officer, Selection Grade Town Panchayat, Sankari, Salem District.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

2.The Assistant Engineer,
Operation & Maintenance,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Sanniyasipatti,
Salem District.
3.The District Collector,
Salem District,
Salem.
4.The Tahsildar,
Sankari Taluk,
Sankari,
Salem District.
W.P.No.13774 of 2010
spd[co]
srg 14/08/2019

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

N.Natarajan v. the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Natarajan v. the Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.S. Shahjakhan Vs the Superintending Engineer

V.a.Joy Vs the Tn Electricity Board,Rep B

M/S.Tamil Nadu Panchayat Union Vs State of Tamilnadu

Kannan Son of Chinnasamy Vs the Tahsildar

S.G.Jayabalan Vs the Competent Authority/

T.Bakthavatsalam, Vs the Commissioner and