Disposed

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

Telangana HC20 Sept 2021WP/4393/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petitions filed by a telecom tower company against the police for inaction in providing protection during construction. It did not issue an immediate direction for protection but set conditions requiring a fresh representation with an undertaking for day-time work before deciding on police aid, leaving miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to file a fresh representation with an undertaking for day-time work before the police are directed to provide protection; miscellaneous petitions closed without costs.

M/s, Indus Towers Limited Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

wRlT PETITION NO: 4393 OF 2020

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

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

¶9

...PETtTtONER(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Station House Officer, Meerpet Police Station, Rachakonda, Telangana State

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of India 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)situated at at open land bearing plot No.38 Northern part in Sy. No.60, situated at Karmanghat, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District Telangana State ,as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Art^.l 9 and 21 of 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 open land bearing plot No.3B Northern part in Sy. No.60, situated at Karmanghat, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District Telangana State, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRJ JUSTICE K, LAI{SHMAN

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.4393 of 2O2O

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

[,ctitione r-cotnpanv claims that they have obtaincrl al] requisite permissions lbr erection of Tele Communicatiorr Infrastructure Tower (TTT) Tower in the open land bearing plot No.38, northern part in Sy.No.60, situated at Karmanghat, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. When the petitioner_ company representatives started construction of said Tower in accordance with the permission granted to them, the neighbours and locality people gathered and resisted the representatives of the petitioner-company from proceeding with the establishment of said Tower alleging that raciiatiorr emanating liom the said Tower would be clangerous to th<:it. health. Having regard ro the opposition fr.om the locality people, petitioner subrnitted representation dated I1.0,2.2019 r.r,ith thr: Station House Officer, Meer.pet police Station seeking to provirlc Police aid for erecLion of Tower in accorciance with the permission already obtained by the petitioner compan1,. Everr then, the 2"d responclent did not provide police aid to the petitioner company. Alleging inaction, this writ petition is filed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on several directions issued by this Court and also orders issued directing the Subordinate police officers to provide protectio. whenever a request is made for installation of cellular towers.

¶25

¶26

:i. Hou cvcr, learne cl^{Assistartt (lovcrnmct-ltI'le ade r for} Ilrrnrc sui;lt-tits that^{if a frt:sh rcpr(:scntatiotlis made bv thc} p(.1ilion(,f^{(.()ntl)itn. irtrlir.atingthc rlirtc anrl1it.t.tt' ol t'i-ectionrll} lo\Cf, the^{l,olir.r: rtouirl pi'or itl<. prot(r(ll j()ll, li tllc sllici rrorl< is} ';ll, lr llP rlttlittg iltt tlar litttr'.

¶27

-+. llaving rr-:gitt'cl 1o tll(l^sillll( '^{this slitpclilion ls} rllspclst'ri ol.,^{(liltL^tirlg iht:2,,,r tr'sponclenl to pr.or.irlt'],tllice:iiid lill.} tr.(rcli()tl ol to$'er,^{if alrrlsitle prcselll'ltiol-l is tlade tlV thc'} pot itjoner-company indicating^{the ciate and timeof} (:()nlrlencelrrent of work and with^{an undertakingthat they} u,oulcl take up the^{said workonlYduring the day time'}

¶28

Mlscellaneous^{petitions,if anv, pendirrq in this Petition'}

¶29

shall stancl closeci.^{'l'hcreshallbe tlo tirticr as lo costs'}

¶30

SD/-T,TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (-," SECTION OFFICER

¶31

To,

¶32

The Station House Officer,^{Meerpet Police Station, Rachakonda, Telangana} State

¶33

Two CCs to the GP for^{Home, High Courtfor the State of Telangana[OUT]}

¶34

One CC to SRI C.KALYAN^{CHAKRAVARTHY, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶35

Two C.D. Copies.

¶36

5- One Spare Copy.

IVR

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010912021

ORDER

WP.No.4393 of 2020

1C. E Slar^t
k
la
o 0 4 0tl20?l
l,+*-
J.

¶43

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶44

D L0*'

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Routhu Saidabai Vs Sri Rahul Raj

Abul Hasnath Complex Maintenance and Welfare Association Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Mohammad Arbaaz Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana and Another

M/s, Indus Towers Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Beeravolu Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Beeravolu Sarojnamma Vs The State of Telangana, And Another