Allowed

S.Thiyagu v. The District Collector

Madras HC18 Dec 2023WP/13860/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CHJ allowed a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging the erection of a cell phone tower. The court found that since permission was granted on 20.09.2022, the grievance regarding the tower erection was no longer subsisting. The respondent was directed to consider the grievance regarding the generator positioning after proper notice. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of. The respondent was directed to consider the grievance regarding the generator's position after issuing notice to the private respondent. No order as to costs. Connec

S.Thiyagu Vs The District Collector — Property and Title | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

WP No.13860 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶8

WP No.13860 of 2019 and WMP No.13935 of 2019

S.Thiyagu

.. Petitioner

-vs-

The District Collector, Coimbatore South 641 018.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore 641 029.

¶14

The Tahsildar, Coimbatore 641 018.

¶15

Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd., No.234, Race Course Road, Gopalapuram, Coimbatore 641 018. .. Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to forbear the 4th respondent, their men, agents and persons claiming through them herein from erecting cell phone tower and installation of any equipment, gadget appurtenant to the above said tower in MIG No 588, Gandhi Managar, Peelamedu, Coimbatore-641 001 by considering the representation dated 20.03.2019 and other consequential relief.

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

WP No.13860 of 2019

¶20

For the Petitioner : Mr.R.Karthikeyan For the Respondents : Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Government Advocate for RR 1 to 3 : Mr.N.R.Anantha Rama Krishnan for R-4 * * * * *

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶23

We have heard Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.N.R.Anantha Rama Krishnan, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 has installed cell phone tower illegally without permission. The generator is also placed in an erroneous manner and within the prohibited area.

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

WP No.13860 of 2019

¶28

The learned Government Advocate, on instructions, submits that respondent No.4 has been granted permission for the installation of cell phone tower on 20.09.2022.

¶29

In view of that, the grievance of the petitioner with regard to erection/installation of the cell phone tower would not now subsist.

¶30

With regard to the positioning of the generator, the petitioner may approach the authorities concerned. The authorities shall consider the grievance of the petitioner in that regard, of course, after notice to respondent No.4 and take decision accordingly.

¶31

The writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 18.12.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No sra

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

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

¶35

WP No.13860 of 2019

¶36

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

¶37

(sra)

¶38

¶39

The District Collector, Coimbatore South 641 018.

¶40

The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶41

Coimbatore 641 029.

¶42

The Tahsildar,

¶43

Coimbatore 641 018.

WP No.13860 of 2019

18.12.2023

Page 4 of 4

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

S.Thiyagu v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Thiyagu 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

R.Ramasamy Vs The District Collector

N.Balusamy Vs The Managing Director

Coimbatore Consumer Cause, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M.Thomas Koshy Vs the Chief Manager

Bakyarathi (deceased) Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

V.Ravikumar Vs The Principal Secretary to Government of India