Indus Towers Limited v. The State Rep. by the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC3 Mar 2026WP Crl./385/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection for cell phone tower erection; Indus Towers Limited; Mayiladuthurai District; writ petition (criminal) under Article 226 mandamus; neighbour obstruction of tower construction; radiation apprehension lacking scientific backing; G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 01.04.2002 Tamil Nadu telecom tower exemption; Crl.O.P.No.16618 of 2018 (28.06.2018); W.P.Nos.24976 of 2008 batch, First Bench order 05.03.2015; R.S.No.252/3B1A1 Amutham Nagar; representation dated 14.01.2026; disposed with direction, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Police protection directed to be provided by the 3rd respondent police for erection of the petitioner's cell phone tower, ensuring the process proceeds smoothly without any law and order problem; writ petition disposed of with the above direction, no costs. ¶¶46

Indus Towers Limited Vs The State Rep. by the… — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 to 3 must provide police protection to the petitioner for its mobile phone tower works at about 1600 sq. ft. comprised in R.S.No.252/3B1A1, Amutham Nagar, Mayiladuthurai District, on its representation dated 14.01.2026. +1 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

Direction to the 3rd respondent police to provide police protection to the petitioner for erection of the cell phone tower, ensuring the entire process goes on smoothly without giving rise to any law and order problem.

¶¶45

Ratio / Principle

No one can be prevented from erecting cell phone towers on a mere apprehension about the effect of radiation; the apprehension has no scientific backing, and till a positive finding is given, towers cannot be prevented from being installed on mere apprehensions.

¶¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Nirmal Kumar, J.), disposing of WP Crl. No. 385 of 2026 filed by Indus Towers Limited under Article 226 of the Constitution, directed the 3rd respondent police (Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai) to provide police protection for erection of the petitioner's cell phone tower on about 1600 sq. ft. in R.S.No.252/3B1A1, Amutham Nagar, Mayiladuthurai District, and to ensure the work proceeds smoothly without any law and order problem. Reiterating this Court's consistent view that tower erection cannot be obstructed on mere apprehensions about radiation, which lack scientific backing until a positive finding exists, the Court relied on its earlier order in Crl.O.P.No.16618 of 2018 dated 28.06.2018 (which, within its quoted text, recorded a First Bench order dated 05.03.2015 in W.P.Nos.24976 of 2008 batch). Petitioners' representation dated 14.01.2026 seeking protection had gone unactioned. Disposed of with the above direction; no costs.

¶1

WP Crl. No. 385 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

WP Crl. No. 385 of 2026

¶7

Indus Towers Limited Rep. by its Authorized Signatory MR.Paridhi Arasu, No.5, ESPEE IT Park, 5^th Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Ekkatuthangal, Chennai - 600 032.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The State Rep. by The Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶11

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶12

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

¶13

The District Collector, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶14

The Tahsildar Mayiladuthurai District.

¶15

The Commissioner, Mayiladuthurai Municipality, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶16

..Respondent(s)

¶17

PRAYER: The writ petition (Crl) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to

¶18

Page1 of 7

¶19

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

¶20

WP Crl. No. 385 of 2026

¶21

provide necessary police protection to the petitioner for their mobile phone tower works at the premises being about 1600 square feet of land and comprised in R.S.No.252/3B1A1 in Amutham Nagar, Mayiladuthurai District on the representation dated 14.01.2026 sent by SPAD, and direct the respondents 4 to 6 to render necessary co-operation to this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶22

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Anil Sandeep For Respondent(s): Mr.LEONARD ARUL JOSEPH SELVAM Additional Public Prosecutor For R1 to R3 ORDER

¶23

This writ petition criminal has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3

¶24

to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner for their mobile phone tower works at the premises being about 1600 square feet of land and comprised in R.S.No.252/3B1A1 in Amutham Nagar, Mayiladuthurai District on the representation dated 14.01.2026 sent by SPAD, and direct the respondents 4 to 6 to render necessary co-operation to the respondents 1 to 3 in the matter.

¶25

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of Operation and Maintenance of Mobile phone towers across India for all the mobile phone operators/service providers providing broadband Internet services and other allied services. For the said purpose, cell phone tower is going to be erected. The petitioner had also entered into a lease agreement with

¶26

__________ Page2 of 7

¶27

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

¶28

WP Crl. No. 385 of 2026

¶29

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.

¶30

3.When the petitioner attempted to erect the cell phone tower, some people with vested interest claiming to be neighbours have been causing hindrance and preventing the workers from carrying out the construction work. In this regard, the petitioner gave a representation to the 3^rd respondent on 14.01.2026, seeking police protection. However, the 3^rd respondent had not acted upon the said representation and therefore, the present Petition has been filed.

¶31

4.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 dt.28.06.2018.

¶32

5.It will be appropriate to extract the relevant portions of the order in Crl.O.P.No.16618 of 2018, which is extracted hereunder:-

¶33

“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

¶34

Page3 of 7

¶35

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

¶36

WP Crl. No. 385 of 2026

¶37

Limited, a company registered under the provisions of Indian Companies 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.

¶38

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

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

__________ Page4 of 7

¶42

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

¶43

WP Crl. No. 385 of 2026

¶44

6.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.

¶45

7.For the reasons stated above, there shall be a direction to the 3^rd respondent police to provide police protection to the petitioner for erection of the cell phone tower. The 3^rd respondent police shall ensure that the entire process goes on in a smooth manner, without giving raise to any law and order problem.

¶46