Allowed¶42

Atc Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. The District Collector

Madras HC11 Mar 2026WP/25210/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cell phone tower; deemed approval/clearance; G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 25.01.2022; 60 calendar days; District Nodal Officer; RoW permission; Form-2 application; Aadhanur Panchayat notice quashed; District Collector Kanchipuram; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus; without application of mind; non-interference direction; ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.; Madras High Court; Krishnan Ramasamy J.; WP No. 25210 of 2022.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notices dated 29.07.2022 & 13.08.2022 quashed; 2nd respondent directed not to interfere with installation of the cell phone tower; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶42

Atc Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs The District… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned notices dated 29.07.2022 & 13.08.2022 quashed; 2nd respondent directed not to interfere with installation of the cell phone tower; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's application for permission to erect the cell phone tower, filed with Form-2 on 06.03.2022 and left undecided past the 60-day limit, attracted deemed approval under G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 25.01.2022. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

The impugned notices issued by the 2nd respondent were issued without application of mind and are liable to be quashed.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Under G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 25.01.2022, once an application is filed for setting up a cell phone tower, the concerned authority must pass orders either granting or rejecting approval within 60 days, failing which permission is deemed granted.

¶37

Key takeaways

Since the petitioner applied on 06.03.2022 and no approval was granted till 02.08.2022, deemed approval operated from 03.08.2022 and the petitioner erected the cell phone tower upon deemed approval.ratio¶37
In view of the deemed approval, the question of the tower having been put up without approval does not arise.ratio¶37
The Writ Petition is allowed; the notices dated 29.07.2022 and 13.08.2022 are quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed not to interfere with the petitioner's installation of the cell phone tower.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Krishnan Ramasamy, J.) allowed W.P. No. 25210 of 2022, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. seeking certiorarified mandamus against notices dated 29.07.2022 and 13.08.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent (Aadhanur Panchayat) directing removal of a cell phone tower at Bharathi Nagar, Adhanur Village, Kancheepuram District. The petitioner had filed an approval application with Form-2 before the District Collector (1st respondent) on 06.03.2022; no approval or rejection was communicated till 02.08.2022. Under G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 25.01.2022, RoW permission is deemed granted if the District Nodal Officer fails to grant or reject the application within 60 calendar days, so the Court held that deemed approval operated from 03.08.2022 and the tower was not put up without approval. The notices were quashed as having been issued without application of mind; the 2nd respondent was directed not to interfere with the installation; no costs; the connected miscellaneous petition (WMP.No.24156 of 2022) was closed.

¶1

WP No. 25210 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

WP No. 25210 of 2022 and

¶7

WMP.No.24156 of 2022

¶8

ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Power of Attorney Holder, N.Senathipathi, Circle Legal head, Celestial Point, No.45, Damodharan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai- 600 017.

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The District Collector, Collectorate Office, Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu.

¶12

Aadhanur Panchayat, Rep. by its President No.1, M.G.R. Nagar VII, Adhanur Main Road, Kundrathur Panchayat Union, Kancheepuram District- 603 202.

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the notices dated 29.07.2022 and 13.08.2022 on the file of the 2^nd Respondent herein and quash the same as without jurisdiction and consequently

¶15

Page1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 25210 of 2022

¶18

forbear the 2^nd Respondent, their men, agent or anyone acting under them, from taking any action against the petitioner’s tower located at Plot No.2, Patta No.9709, S.No. 373 / 2D3B and 373 / 5A2, Bharathi Nagar, Adhanoor Village, near Durai Agency Kannadhasam Main Road, Adhanur, Madambakkam, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu- 603202 unilaterally and without written orders of the 1^st Respondent herein as per law.

¶19

For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Ravikumar For Respondent(s): Mrs.S.Anitha Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 29.07.2022 & 13.08.2022 directing the petitioner to remove the Cell Phone Tower.

¶22

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that while the petitioner has installed Cell phone tower in his land, the 2^nd respondent issued notices directing the petitioner not to put up any Cell Phone tower on the basis that it is in violation and without getting approval of the District Collector. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has initially made an application on 06.06.2022 before the 1^st respondent and obtained deemed permission in terms of G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 25.01.2022. He would submit that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.4, the respondents

¶23

Page2 of 6

¶24

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

¶25

WP No. 25210 of 2022

¶26

supposed to have processed the application within a period of 60 days time i.e., on or before 05.08.2022. In the present case, since no order has been passed therefore, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.4 of 2022, the petitioner obtained deemed approval. He would further submit that upon deemed approval, the petitioner proceeded to put up the cell phone tower but, without taking into consideration the deemed approval granted, the impugned notices issued by the 2^nd respondent are contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.4 of 2022 and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶27

Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 2^nd respondent would submit that since no approval was obtained, the 2^nd respondent issued the impugned notices. She would also submit that in the event any application was filed by the petitioner as contended, the respondent has not granted any approval within 60 days time, the 1^st respondent can grant deemed approval in terms of G.O.Ms.No.4.

¶28

The relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 25.01.2022 is extracted hereunder:

¶29

“Application Process and Deemed Clearance:

¶30

The District Nodal Officer shall, within a period not exceeding 60 calendar days from the date of application, grant permission (or) reject the application for specific reasons/deficiencies to be recorded in writing.

¶31

__________ Page3 of 6

¶32

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

¶33

WP No. 25210 of 2022

¶34

No application shall be rejected unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard on the reasons/deficiencies for such rejection.

¶35

RoW permission shall be deemed to have been granted if the District Nodal Officer fails to grant permission or reject the application within 60 calendar days of the date of application.”

¶36

A perusal of the above, it is made clear that if any application is filed

¶37

by any of the persons for the purpose of setting up cell phone tower, the concerned respondent is supposed to have passed orders either granting approval or rejecting the application for approval within a period of 60 days. In the present case, the petitioner filed an application before the 1^st respondent for approval along with Form-2 on 06.03.2022 and till 02.08.2022, no approval was granted therefore, the approval was deemed to be granted with effect from 03.08.2022 for setting up the cell phone tower in terms of G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 25.01.2022. It is also evident that the commencement of cell phone tower is only with effect from 08.02.2022. Hence, the question of without producing the approval for setting up cell phone tower will not arise. It is clear that the petitioner has put up the cell phone tower upon deemed approval.

¶38

In such view of the matter, the impugned notices issued by the 2^nd respondent without application of mind is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned notices issued by the 2^nd respondent

¶39

Page4 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

WP No. 25210 of 2022

¶42

dated 29.07.2022 & 13.08.2022 are quashed. The 2^nd respondent is directed not to interfere with the petitioner from installation of the cell phone tower. No

¶43

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶44

11-03-2026

¶45

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶46

KKN

¶47

¶48