The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking prohibition of a cell phone tower erection due to a subsequent notification from the Ministry of Communication (dated 17.08.2022) clarifying that prior permission is not required.
No further order necessary; writ petition and connected miscellaneous petitions dismissed and closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P(MD)No.10287 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.10287 of 2019
and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.7924 and 7925 of 2019
A.Umadevi
... Petitioner
Vs.
1/6
W.P(MD)No.10287 of 2019
6.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk Office, Madurai District.
10.Santhi
... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 8 herein to prevent and forebear the Tower Company / 9th respondent, his agent or anybody through him from operating / erecting / commissioning any Cell Phone Tower amidst or in the vicinity of the residential area in the 10th respondent land located at S.R.No.396 in New Survey No.151/1 sub division Number 151/1A in Plot No.1 at Anuppanadi to Chindamani Cross Road, Anuppanadi, Madurai - 625 009 in the light of various representations.
2/6
W.P(MD)No.10287 of 2019
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Balamurugan For Respondents : Mr.S.Jayasingh, Senior Panel Counsel for R1. Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, Govt. Advocate for R2, R3 & R6. Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, Standing Counsel for R7 & R8. Mrs.VIjayakumari Natarajan, Standing Counsel for R4. Mr.R.Murali, Standing Counsel for R5. Mr.R.G.Shankar Gamesh for R9. No appearance for R10.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.The petitioner is aggrieved by the location of cellphone tower near his residential premises. The petitioner's case is that the ninth respondent had not obtained prior permission from the District Collector. The learned counsel for the ninth respondent submitted that following the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.P.Nos.15974 of 2019 etc batch, dated 29.08.2019, obtaining permission from the District Collector became necessary but then, the cellphone tower in question was erected even before the said order was passed. He would also point out that subsequently, the Ministry of Communication issued
3/6
W.P(MD)No.10287 of 2019
notification dated 17.08.2022 making it clear that prior permission is not required for establishing over-ground telegraphic infrastructure over any private property and that sending intimation alone is sufficient.
3.In view of the subsequent notification dated 17.08.2022, no further order is necessary in this writ petition and it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
21.12.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias
To:
1.The Secretary, Department of Environment and Forest, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.
3.The Tahsildar, Madurai South Taluk Office, Madurai District.
4/6
W.P(MD)No.10287 of 2019
W.P(MD)No.10287 of 2019
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
W.P(MD)No.10287 of 2019
21.12.2022
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a further order is necessary in a writ petition where a subsequent government notification clarifies the legal position regarding permissions for telecommunication towers?
Whether to dismiss the writ petition and close connected miscellaneous petitions based on the updated legal position?
A.Umadevi
The Chairman, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)
The Secretary, Department of Environment and Forest
The District Collector, Madurai District
The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation
G.R.Swaminathan
IAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
