Disposed¶47

M/s.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu Represented

Madras HC12 Jun 2026WP/22126/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BSNL telecom equipment removal from sealed premises; lock and seal for building plan violation; tenant disadvantaged by owner's failure to request de-sealing; fresh representation within one week; landlord consent for temporary de-sealing; Greater Chennai Corporation; Assistant Executive Engineer Zone IX Unit 26; cell phone tower; Article 226; Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus; W.P. No. 22126 of 2026; Madras High Court; decided 12.06.2026; no costs; connected W.M.P. closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioner to make a fresh representation within one week with the landlord's consent for temporary de-sealing limited to removal of the equipments, to be considered in accordance with law by the 3rd respondent expeditiously; no costs; connected W.M.P. closed. ¶47

M/s.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs State of Tamil… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether BSNL, the tenant in the premises sealed for building plan violation, can be put to disadvantage and loss for the owner's omission to make a request for de-sealing. +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

For the omission of the building owner to make a request for de-sealing, the tenant, who is the petitioner (BSNL), cannot be put to disadvantage and loss.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner makes a fresh representation within one week from receipt of a copy of the order, along with the landlord's consent for temporary de-sealing of the premises for the limited purpose of removing the equipments, the same may be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders passed by the 3rd respondent (Greater Chennai Corporation) as expeditiously as possible.

¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Division Bench of Dr. G. Jayachandran, J., author, and N. Mala, J.) disposed of a writ petition by BSNL under Article 226 seeking Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the communication of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation (No.A.E.E.26/Apl/2026 dated 10.01.2026) and to direct de-sealing of RC Towers, Door No. 82/27, Josier Street, Nungambakkam, sealed for alleged building plan violation on a neighbour's objection, so that BSNL could dismantle and remove its telecom equipment. The Corporation had declined de-sealing because the request did not emanate from the building owner. Holding that the tenant cannot be put to disadvantage and loss for the owner's omission to request de-sealing, the Court directed that if BSNL made a fresh representation within one week, with the landlord's consent for temporary de-sealing limited to removal of the equipments, the 3rd respondent would consider it in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. Disposed of with no costs; connected W.M.P. closed.

¶1

W.P. No. 22126 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA

¶8

W.P. No. 22126 of 2026

¶9

¶10

W.M.P. No. 24015 of 2026

¶11

M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, (A Government of India Enterprise), rep. by the Assistant General Manager (Legal & RTI), Mrs.T.R. Reshmi, having office at BSNL, Chennai Telephones, No.78, Purasawalkam High Road, Chennai – 600 010.

¶12

..Petitioner

¶13

Vs.

¶14

State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶15

1\6

¶16

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

¶17

W.P. No. 22126 of 2026

¶18

Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, rep. by its Member Secretary, Chief Executive Officer, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶19

Greater Chennai Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Rippon Building, Chennai – 600 003.

¶20

The Executive Engineer, Zone IX, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.4, Lake Area, 4^th Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

¶21

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Zone IX, Unit 26, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.4, Lake Area, 4^th Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶22

Mr.K. Ramanujam 7. Mr.C. Swaminathan ..Respondents

¶23

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶24

praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 5^th respondent in No.A.E.E.26/Apl/2026 dated 10.01.2026 and quash the same and direct the respondents to de-seal the premises bearing RC Towers, Door No. 82/27, Josier Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034 and grant permission to

¶25

2\6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P. No. 22126 of 2026

¶28

the petitioner for dismantling and removal of its telecom equipment, independently and without insisting upon any request from the owner, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶29

For Petitioner :: Mr.P. Mohanraj For Respondents :: Mr.Surendar, Govt. Advocate for R1 Ms.Mirdula Rayan, Standing Counsel for R2 Mr.D.B.R. Prabhu, Standing Counsel for R3 to R5

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

( Made by Dr.G. JAYACHANDRAN,J.)

¶32

M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, (‘BSNL’ in short), the

¶33

petitioner herein, seeks intervention of this Court by way of this writ petition directing respondents 3 to 5 to de-seal the premises namely, RC Towers, bearing Door No. 82/27, Josier Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34, which is now under lock and seal for building plan violation and to permit the petitioner to dismantle and remove the telecom equipment installed in the said premises, now under seal.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the building is owned by the 6^th respondent and on the objection by the 7^th

¶35

3\6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P. No. 22126 of 2026

¶38

respondent, who is a neighbour, the building is now under lock and seal in view of alleged building plan violation. As a consequence, BSNL, which

¶39

has put up cell phone tower in the building suffers collateral damage.

¶40

Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Greater

¶41

Chennai Corporation states that the request of the writ petitioner to de-seal the premises and to dismantle and remove the telecom equipments was not considered by the authorities and since the request for de-sealing the building and to remove the equipments, has not emanated from the owner of the building, the request could not be considered.

¶42

The request of the petitioner is only to de-seal the premises to enable them to remove the equipments erected on the building. The impugned communication of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation dated 10.01.2026 reveals that the building owner has not made any request for de-sealing the premises. Thus, for the omission to make such a request, the tenant, who is the petitioner herein cannot be put to disadvantage and loss. Hence, we are of the view that if the petitioner makes a fresh representation within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with the consent of the landlord for

¶43

4\6

¶44

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

¶45

W.P. No. 22126 of 2026

¶46

temporary de-sealing of the premises for the limited purpose of removing the equipments, the same may be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders to be passed by the 3^rd respondent as expeditiously as possible.

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected W.M.P. is closed.

¶48

(Dr.G.J.J.) (N.M.J.)

¶49

nv 12.06.2026 To

¶50

The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶51

Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, rep. by its Member Secretary, Chief Executive Officer, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶52