Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

A.Rajamani Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Home
Madras HC
2026
A.Rajamani Vs the District CollectorA.Rajamani v. the District Collector

Dismissed¶30

A.Rajamani v. the District Collector

Writ of Mandamus – Telecommunication tower

Madras HC28 Jan 2026WP/1815/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava with G.Arul Murugan, J) dismissed WP No.1815 of 2026 (A.Rajamani v. District Collector, Ranipet and others, including Indus Towers Limited as fifth respondent), a mandamus petition under Article 226 seeking consideration of the petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2025 and complaint dated 20.12.2025 against a telecommunication tower. The Court held the challenge bereft of materials, that no law or guideline prohibits tower installation in densely populated areas or near hospitals or schools, and that the petition was against public interest; dismissed without costs, closing WMP No.1901 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's challenge to the installation of the telecommunication tower by the fifth respondent is bereft of any materials. ¶29

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should be directed, by way of a Writ of Mandamus, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2025 and complaint dated 20.12.2025 concerning the telecommunication tower installed by the fifth respondent. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner's challenge to the installation of the telecommunication tower by the fifth respondent is bereft of any materials.

Ratio / Principle

The submission that the tower ought not to have been installed at a densely populated area or near hospitals or schools is not supported by any law or guidelines prohibiting such locations for telecommunication towers.

Key takeaways

The petition is against public interest and not in furtherance of public interest.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of Mandamus – Telecommunication tower – Petitioner (A.Rajamani) sought direction to respondents 1–4 to consider his representation dated 18.12.2025 and complaint dated 20.12.2025 challenging the tower installed by Indus Towers Limited (fifth respondent) – Court found the challenge bereft of any materials – objection to location in a densely populated area or near hospitals or schools not supported by any law or guidelines prohibiting such locations – petition held to be against public interest and not in furtherance of public interest – Petition dismissed, no order as to costs – WMP No.1901 of 2026 consequently closed – (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ; G.Arul Murugan, J) – 28.01.2026.

A

WP No.1815 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.01.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,

CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

WP No.1815 of 2026

A.Rajamani

: Petitioner

versus

1.The District Collector, Ranipet

2.The Commissioner,

Municipality Corporation, Ranipet

3.The Tahsildar,

Ranipet Taluk, Ranipet

4.The Inspector of Police, Sholinghur Police Station, Sholinghur

5.Indus Towers Limited, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai 60032

: Respondents

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 18.12.2025 and complaint dated 20.12.2025 in a time bound manner and pass orders.

For Petitioner : Ms.Nivetha For Respondents : Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar, State Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3

Page 1 of 4

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

WP No.1815 of 2026

Mr.R.Kishore Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for respondent No.4

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued in extenso, challenging the installation of telecommunication tower by the fifth respondent. The said challenge, if we may so, is bereft of any materials. The submission of the petitioner that the tower ought not to have been installed at a densely populated area or near hospitals or schools, is not supported by any law or guidelines which prohibits such location to be used for the purpose of installation of telecommunication tower.

The petition is against public interest and not in furtherance of public interest. The petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP No.1901 of 2026 is closed.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) 28.01.2026

Index : Yes/No tar

Page 2 of 4

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

WP No.1815 of 2026

To

1.The District Collector, Ranipet

2.The Commissioner, Municipality Corporation, Ranipet

3.The Tahsildar, Ranipet Taluk, Ranipet

4.The Inspector of Police, Sholinghur Police Station, Sholinghur

Page 3 of 4

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

WP No.1815 of 2026

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

(tar)

WP No.1815 of 2026

28.01.2026

Page 4 of 4

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

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the respondents should be directed, by way of a Writ of Mandamus, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2025 and complaint dated 20.12.2025 concerning the telecommunication tower installed by the fifth respondent.¶21
The court held
The petitioner's challenge to the installation of the telecommunication tower by the fifth respondent is bereft of any materials.ratio¶29
2.
Whether the installation of the telecommunication tower by the fifth respondent at a densely populated area or near hospitals or schools is prohibited by any law or guidelines.¶29
The court held
The submission that the tower ought not to have been installed at a densely populated area or near hospitals or schools is not supported by any law or guidelines prohibiting such locations for telecommunication towers.ratio¶29

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶21

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioner had submitted a representation dated 18.12.2025 to the respondents, which the writ petition sought to have considered.¶21
Prior proceeding
Petitioner had lodged a complaint dated 20.12.2025, which the writ petition likewise sought to have considered.¶21

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
A.Rajamani¶10
Ms.Nivetha
respondent
The District Collector, Ranipet¶37
Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar
respondent
The Commissioner, Municipality Corporation, Ranipet¶38
Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar
respondent
The Tahsildar, Ranipet Taluk, Ranipet¶39
Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar
respondent
The Inspector of Police, Sholinghur Police Station, Sholinghur¶40
Mr.R.Kishore Kumar
respondent
Indus Towers Limited, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai 60032¶19

Coram

AI extract

Manindra Mohan Shrivastavaauthor¶28
G.Arul Muruganmember¶8

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 28 Jan 2026 · January
Registered: 19 Jan 2026
Case no.: WP/1815/2026
CNR: HCMA010094502026
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: G.arul Murugan
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: WP

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from G.arul Murugan

K.Thirumurugan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu
27 Jan 2026
E.Velayutham Vs the Secretary to Government
27 Jan 2026
A.Ahmed Mohideen Vs The Additional Secretary (Technical)
27 Jan 2026
R.Kumar Vs the Secretary
28 Jan 2026
G Nehru @ Kuppusamy Vs The union Territory of Puducherry
28 Jan 2026
A.K.Sai J.Saravanan Kumar Vs the Chief Secretary to Government
28 Jan 2026

Cite this judgement

A.Rajamani v. the District Collector, WP/1815/2026 (MAD), decided on 28 January 2026.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Procedural history2

Petitioner had submitted a representation dated 18.12.2025 to the respondents, which the writ petition sought to have considered.
Petitioner had lodged a complaint dated 20.12.2025, which the writ petition likewise sought to have considered.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and G.Arul Murugan

Parties & counsel