Allowed

M/S Tower Vision India Private Ltd. v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC15 Sept 2023WP/27196/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court directed the respondent police to provide protection for the petitioner to erect a cell phone tower based on a verified complaint, dismissing apprehensions about radiation effects without scientific backing.

What did the court decide?

Director the second respondent police to provide protection for erecting the tower and ensure a smooth process; arahed the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000 as cost.

M/S Tower Vision India Private Ltd. Vs the… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.27196 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.09.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.No.27196 of 2023

¶7

M/s.Tower Vision India Private Ltd., Rep by its Authorised Signatory, R.M.Nagappan

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶11

The Inspector of Police, Sembanarkoil Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District. ..Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to provide effective Police protection to the petitioner company's personnel, vendors & contractors for installation of cell phone towers in respect of work site bearing property Survey No: 57/2A2, Sembanarkoil Village, Tharangapadi Taluk, Mayiladuthurai District - 609 309 based on complaint dated 23.08.2023.

¶13

For Petitioner : M/s.A.M.Amutha Ganesh

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran,

¶15

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

¶16

1/7

¶17

W.P.No.27196 of 2023

¶18

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to

¶21

provide effective Police protection to the petitioner company's personnel, vendors and contractors for installation of cell phone towers in respect of work site bearing property in Survey No.57/2A2, Sembanarkoil village, Tharangapadi taluk, Mayiladuthurai district based on complaint, dated 23.08.2023.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner Company is a telecommunication service provider doing business of installation, operation and maintenance of cellphone towers and other related works throughout India. For the said purpose, cell phone towers are going to be erected. The petitioner had also entered into a lease agreement with the owner of the property and had taken steps to install the cell phone tower. Already, the Government of Tamil Nadu has granted exemption to all the Telecom companies to install the cell phone towers by virtue of Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 01.04.2002.

¶23

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

¶24

2/7

¶25

W.P.No.27196 of 2023

¶26

When the petitioner attempted to erect the cell phone tower, the

¶27

residents of the area came to the spot and started causing hindrance to the company officials from carrying out the construction work. The petitioner also gave a complaint, dated 23.08.2023 to the second respondent Police to provide them with protection. However, the second respondent Police had not acted upon the said complaint and therefore, the present petition has been filed.

¶28

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this petition is covered by the earlier Judgments of this Court. The learned Counsel brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.16618 of 2018, wherein the very same petitioner was a party.

¶29

It will be appropriate to extract the relevant portions of the order in

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.16618 of 2018, which is extracted hereunder:-

¶31

“2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's company had the contract agreement for installation of cell phone tower with M/s.Indus Towers Limited, a company registered under the provisions of Indian Companies

¶32

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

¶33

3/7

¶34

W.P.No.27196 of 2023

¶35

Act, 1956. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that whenever the petitioner's company attempted to erect transmission cell phone tower, publics are causing interference. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that by order dated 05.03.2015, the Honourable First Bench of this Court, in W.P.Nos.24976 of 2008 and etc., batch, held that because of the advancement in the science, no one has prevented to erect cell phone towers. It is also submitted that the petitioner has given a complaint dated 24.02.2016 to the first respondent police seeking police protection, for which C.S.R.No.42 of 2016 and since the same has not been considered so far, he has come up with the present petition for the relief stated supra.

¶36

3.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

¶37

4.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to send a fresh representation to the respondent and on receipt of the same, the respondent is directed to consider the representation to be submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶38

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

¶39

4/7

¶40

W.P.No.27196 of 2023

¶41

5.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.”

¶42

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.

¶43

For the reasons stated above, there shall be a direction to the

¶44

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 and the petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the respondent Police towards police protection.

¶45

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

¶46

5/7

¶47

W.P.No.27196 of 2023

¶48

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No

¶49

Costs.

¶50

15.09.2023

¶51

Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : yes/no grs

¶52

¶53

The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶54

The Inspector of Police, Sembanarkoil Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶55

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶56

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

¶57

6/7

¶58

W.P.No.27196 of 2023

¶59

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

grs

W.P.No.27196 of 2023

15.09.2023

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

¶64

7/7

M/S Tower Vision India Private Ltd. v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Tower Vision India Private Ltd. v. the Superintendent of Police

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

Sri Avina Paper and Boards Private Ltd. Vs v.C.R.Finance

Sethurajan Vs Manickavasagam

Johnybasha Vs Inspector of Police

S.Saranya Vs Pavankumar G.Giriyappanavar, Ias.

Selvakumar Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

K.Praveen Kumar Vs the State Rep.by