Allowed

M/s, Indus Towers Limited v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Dec 2020WP/19890/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking police protection for erecting a telecom tower. The court directed the police to provide protection during daytime as per specific conditions, noting the need to avoid night work.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent police to provide protection for daytime work after intimation, restricting miscellaneous work to before sunset.

M/s, Indus Towers Limited Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY. THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN R,AO

¶5

wRtT PET|T|ON NO. 19890 0F 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. lndus Towers Limited, Survey No. 133, 4-51, Bth Floor, SLN Terminus, Beside Botanical Gardens, Gachibowli, Hyderabad - 500032, Rep. by its Circle Head - Legal.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

'1 . The State of Telangana, Represented by it's Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Tank bund, Basheer Bagh Near NTR Gardens, Opposite Lumbini Park, Hyderabad - 500022.

¶11

The Station House Officer, Uppal X Road, P & T Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶12

The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad It/unicipal Corporation, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writ or any other order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent not providing police protection to the petitioner company for erecting the Tele Communication infrastructure Tower (TlT) at H.No 2-4-12315121461711, in plot No.46/7 in Survey No. 6011, 62, 63, and 64 situated at seven hills colony, Swaroop Nagar, Uppal Kalan (Village), Uppal (lVandal) Hyderabad Telangana State as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Art 19 and 21 ol Constitution of lndia and well settled principles of natural justice.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to provide^{police protection} to the petitioner company for erecting the Tele Communication infrastructure Tower (TlT) at H.No 2-4-12315121461711 , in plot No.46/7 in Survey No. 60/'1 , 62, 63, and 64 situated at seven hills colony, Swaroop Nagar, Uppal Kalan^(Village), Uppal^(Mandal) Hyderabad Telangana State pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: AGP FOR HOME

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI SAMPATH PRABHAKAR REDDY,

¶20

S.C. FOR GHMC

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.1989O OF 2O2O

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Sampath Prabhakar, learned standing counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent No.3.

¶27

This writ petition is filed praying to grant police protection for installation of cellular tower.

¶28

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, even though all permits are obtained and petitioner is complying with the statutory requirements while installing the cellular to\rer, some local people are interfering and obstructing in undertaking the construction work. Petitioner therefore requests the respondent - police to provide police protection to install the cellular tower. According to him, 9O%o of the work is already completed and only 10% of the work remains, such as obtaining power supply, installation of generator and some miscellaneous work.

¶29

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that police are inclined to provide police protection to the petitioner in view of the directions dated 13.08.2019 of the Director General of Police, but protection will be provided during the day time as and when work is undertaken upon petitioner informing the local police in advance about the date and time of execution of work.

¶30

¶31

In view of the same, the respondent - police shall provide police protection to the petitioner as and when petitioner informs the date and time for execution of the work with reference to providing police protection in compliance of the directions of the Director General of Police, dated 13.08.2019. However, it is made clear that the remaining miscellaneous work shall be executed during the course of the day only and not after the sunset.

¶32

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscelianeous petitions shall stand closed.

¶33

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGI R

¶34

//TRUE COPY//

¶35

SECTIO OFFICER

¶36

To, 1. The Princioal secretary,^{HomeDepartment,state of Telangana, secretariat} Buildinqs, Tank bund,-Basheer^{Bagh Near NTRGardens, OppositeLumbrnr} Park. Hlderaba d^- 500022.

¶37

z. f[J"Stjtion-House^{Officer, Uppal X Road' P & T Colony, Uppal,Hyderabad'} Telanoana State.

¶38

e. i[e 6omm-iiiloner,^{createrHyderabad MunicipatcorporationHyderabad,} Telanoana State.

¶39

on; Ct to Sri C.^{Kalyan Chakrava(hy,Advocate} toPUqI

¶40

iw; CCs't;cp^{for fiome, High Court for the Staie of Telanganaat Hyderabad.} TOUTI

¶41

O. bre CC to Sri^{Sampath Prabhakar Reddy'S.C. for GHIr/C [OPUC]} 7. Two CD Copies.

IVP

HIGH COURT

DATED:4/1212020

ORDER

WP.No.19890 of 2020

',i{i,
s tiil
il
-s'
tr .f: ,/

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶49

q
?,D'

M/s, Indus Towers Limited v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s, Indus Towers Limited v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Koripelli Srinivas Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Singareni Collieries Officers Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Vs State of Telangana

M. Anji Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

M a Moiz Abbasi Vs Mr Kishan Naik

RamsettySudhakar Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Cheguri Anitha Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others