Indus Towers Limited vs The Commissioner Of Plice
2021 Latest Caselaw 4338 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4338 Mad
Judgement Date : 19 February, 2021

Madras High Court

Indus Towers Limited vs The Commissioner Of Plice on 19 February, 2021

WP No.3686 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.02.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

WP No. 3686 of 2021

Indus Towers Limited,
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,
Mr.S.Prasanna,
No.5, ESPEE IT Park
5th Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Ekkatuthangal, Chennai 600 097. ... Petitioner
vs.

1. The Commissioner of Plice,
Greater Chennai, Chennai.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Thoraipakkam Range, Chennai.

3. The Inspector of Police,
J-9, Thoraipakkam Police Station, Chennai.

4. The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai.

5. The District Collector,
Chengalpet District.

6. The Tahsildar
Sholinganallur Taluk, Chengalpaet District. ... Respondents

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
WP No.3686 of 2021

Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents the
Respondents 1 to 3 to provide necessary Police Protection to the petitioner
for their mobile phone tower works at the premises being about 500 square
feet of building at Plot No.1A Chinnappa Naicker Street Okkiyam
Thoraipakkam in Survey No.142/7 in Okkiyam Thoraipakkam village
chennai 96 on the representation dated 15.7.2020 to the 3rd Respondent
under online Referecne No. BAP 20073465/2020 and direct the respondents
4 to 6 to render necessary cooperation to the respondents 1 to 3 in the
matter.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Anil Sandeep

For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

This petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus,

directing the respondents 1 to 3 to provide the police protection to the

petitioner company to erect transmission cell phone tower and to install all

the telecommunication electrical & electronic Equipments, OFC Cable and

its maintenance work on the said BTS transmission Tower at the premises

being about 500 square feet of building at Plot No.1A Chinnappa Naicker

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.3686 of 2021

Street Okkiyam Thoraipakkam in Survey No.142/7 in Okkiyam

Thoraipakkam Village, Chennai 96, and direct the respondents 4 to 6 to co-

operate with respondents 1 to 3 as per the letter dated 15.7.2020 the

petitioner undertakes to pay necessary charges.

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 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.

3.When the petitioner attempted to erect the cell phone tower, some

people with vested interest claiming to be neighbours have been causing

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.3686 of 2021

hindrance and preventing the workers from carrying out the construction

work. In this regard, the petitioner gave a complaint to the 3rd respondent

on 15.7.2020, seeking police protection. However, the 3rd respondent had

not acted upon the said complaint and therefore, the present Petition has

been filed.

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.

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:-

“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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.3686 of 2021

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.

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

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.

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

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ WP No.3686 of 2021

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.

7.For the reasons stated above, there shall be a direction to the third

respondent police to provide police protection to the petitioner for erection

of the cell phone tower. The third respondent police shall ensure that the

entire process goes on in a smooth manner, without giving raise to any law

and order problem.