Partly allowed

T.Hariprakash v. The District Collector

Madras HC12 Jun 2023WP/12683/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challlenged the erection of a mobile tower. The court noted the corporation application for the tower was rejected without permission. No construction was found. The petition was closed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to challenge the rejection order separately.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the Zonal Officer-III to furnish the rejection communication dated 05.06.2023 to the 3rd respondent immediately; Writ Petition closed.

T.Hariprakash Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.12683 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.06.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.No.12683 of 2023 and WMP No.12463 of 2023

T.Hariprakash

... Petitioner

.Vs.

The District Collector Chennai District Singaravelar Maaligai Chennai-600 001. 2. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Buildings 53, Raja Muthiah Road Kannappar Thidal Periyamet Chennai-600 003. 3. M/s.Tower Vision India Private Limited Rep.by its Authorised Signatory No.6, Dr.Abedkar Street, B.V.Nagar Gandhi Nagar, Meenambakkam Chennai-600027. 4. Mr.P.Gopalakrishnan No.21A, 20^th Street Thirumal Nagar, Puthagaram Vinayagapuram, Kolathur Chennai - 600 099. .. Respondents

¶11

Page 1 of 6

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

W.P.No.12683 of 2023

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to refrain the respondents 3 and 4 from making construction to erect and install mobile tower on the house building of the 4^th respondent situated at No.43, 2^nd Main Road, Thirumal Nagar, Puthagaram, Vinayagapuram, Kolathur, Chennai-600 099.

¶15

For Petitioners Mr.P.Manojkumar

¶16

For Respondents Mr.C.Selvaraj Additional Government Pleader for R1

¶17

Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi Standing Counsel for R2

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

When the writ petition came up for hearing on 26.4.2023, this Court passed the following order:

¶20

Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for 1^st respondent. Mrs.P.T.Ramadevi, learned Standing counsel takes notice for 2^nd respondent. Notice to the respondents 3 and 4 both through Court as well as privately returnable by 12.06.2023.

¶21

2.The learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of Chennai Corporation submitted that pursuant to GO Ms No.4 Information Technology Department dated 25.01.2022, the Corporation Commissioner is the District Nodal Officer, who is solely empowered to issue permission for erection of Mobile towers. The grievance of the

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.No.12683 of 2023

¶25

petitioner is that the 3^rd respondent is erecting the mobile tower over the property belonging to the 4^th respondent without getting any permission or approval. If such erection of mobile tower is done without the approval of the 2^nd respondent, it is left open to the Chennai Corporation to proceed further against the respondents 3 and 4 and if any such action is taken, a report shall also be filed before this Court.

¶26

3.Post this case on 12.06.2023.

¶27

2.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the Chennai Corporation has filed a counter affidavit. For proper appreciation, the relevant portion in the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:

¶28

“8 . I submit that since the public in that vicinity have objected for erection of cell phone tower the Online Application submitted by the 3rd respondent herein was rejected on 05.06.2023 and the rejection order was also communicated to the 4th respondent by letter dated 07.06.2023. Further, the building at No.43, 2nd Main Road, Thirumal Nagar, Puthagaram, Vinayagapuram, Kolathur, Chennai - 600 099 was again inspected and found that the no construction/erection activity is being carried out by the 3rd respondent herein”.

¶29

3.It is clear from the above that the online application submitted by the 3^rd respondent

¶30

has been rejected on 05.06.2023 and the rejection order has been communicated to the 4^th respondent, who is the owner of the property through letter dated 07.06.2023. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submitted that they have not received any notice from the

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.No.12683 of 2023

¶34

Chennai corporation.

¶35

4.There shall be a direction to the Zonal Officer-III, Zone-III, Greater Chennai Corporation, to furnish the communication dt.05.06.2023, rejecting the application made by the 3^rd respondent, to the 3^rd respondent immediately to enable the 3^rd respondent to challenge the same in the manner known to law.

¶36

5.Considering the stand taken by the Chennai Corporation, nothing survives in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed

¶37

12.06.2023

¶38

KP Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.No.12683 of 2023

¶42

¶43

The District Collector Chennai District Singaravelar Maaligai Chennai-600 001.

¶44

The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation Rippon Buildings 53, Raja Muthiah Road Kannappar Thidal Periyamet Chennai-600 003.

¶45

The Zonal Officer-III Zone-III

¶46

Greater Chennai Corporation.

¶47

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. KP

¶48

Page 5 of 6

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

W.P.No.12683 of 2023

W.P.No.12683 of 2023

12.06.2023

Page 6 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

T.Hariprakash v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Hariprakash v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Rathinavelu Vs S.Karmegam IAS and 3 others

S.Selvi Vs The Joint commissioner

R.Lenin Vs P.Ponniah and another

M/s.Malack Leathers Vs The Additional Chief Secretary

Kamalesh Vs The Commissioner

M.v.Vijayaragavan Vs The Assistant commissioner/Executive trustee