Abdul Ummal Bageeral Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ of mandamus, (a) directing the 1st respondent to forthwith inspect the premises at 44, Santhome High Road, Chennai-600 004 and take immediate steps under the relevant provisions of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 to cause the removal of the dangerous, dilapidated, and hazardous mobile tower belonging to the 2nd respondent and (b)directing the 2nd respondent to forthwith remove its mobile tower, equipment, and all appurtenances from the petitioners premises and hand over peaceful and vacant possession and grant liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate civil and / or other legal proceedings for recovery of (a) arrears of rent and (b) mesne profits from the 2nd respondent together with interest as permissible in law and award the costs of this petition to the petitioner

¶23

For Petitioner: Ms. T. Usha For Mr. S.Bageerathan

¶24

For Respondents: Mr. M.Sivavarthanan, Govt. Counsel – R1 Mrs. V. Soundarya For Mr.D.B.R. Prabhu, Standing Counsel –R2

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1

¶27

and 2 to inspect the premises bearing No.44, Santhome High Road, Chennai –

¶28

600 004, and to take appropriate action under the relevant provisions of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, for the removal of the allegedly

¶29

Page2 of 5

¶30

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

¶31

WP No. 28875 of 2025

¶32

dangerous, dilapidated, and hazardous mobile tower belonging to the third respondent, by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 06.10.2024.

¶33

Admittedly, the mobile tower was erected on the said property by the fifth respondent pursuant to a lease agreement executed by the petitioner in its favour. It is also not in dispute that the fifth respondent no longer exists and that the lease period has since expired.

¶34

The mobile tower was not erected by the second respondentCorporation. Therefore, the Corporation cannot be fastened with any obligation to dismantle or remove a tower erected by a private entity on the petitioner’s property. If the petitioner intends to dismantle the tower, it is needless to observe that he is at liberty to do so at his own cost, and taking adequate safety measures to ensure that the lives and property of the occupants of the surrounding buildings are not endangered.

¶35