Indus Towers Limited vs The Superintendent Of Police
2021 Latest Caselaw 6354 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6354 Mad
Judgement Date : 10 March, 2021

Madras High Court

Indus Towers Limited vs The Superintendent Of Police on 10 March, 2021

1 W.P.No.6038 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 10.03.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

W.P.No.6038 of 2021

Indus Towers Limited,
Rep by its Authorized Signatory
Mr.S.Prasanna .. Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police,
Ranipet District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Ranipet Division, Ranipet District.

3. The Inspector of Police,
Arcot Rural Police Station (Taluk P.S.), Ranipet District.

4. The District Collector,
Ranipet District.

5. The President,
Thayanur Panchyat, Ranipet District.

6. The Tahsildar,
Walaja Taluk, Ranipet District. .. Respondents

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2 W.P.No.6038 of 2021

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India praying to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1

to 3 to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner for

their mobile phone tower works at the premises being about 940

Sq.Ft of land at Plot No.14, S.F.No.3/16, Indira Nagar, Arcot,

Ranipet District-632 503, on the representation dated 27.02.2021 to

the 3rd respondent under online Reference No.HEE21030831/2021,

and direct the respondents 4 to 6 to render necessary co-operation

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 necessary

police protection to the petitioner for their mobile phone tower

works at the premises being about 940 Sq.Ft of land at Plot No.14,

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

S.F.No.3/16, Indira Nagar, Arcot, Ranipet District-632 503, on the

representation dated 27.02.2021 to the 3rd respondent under online

Reference No.HEE21030831/2021, and direct the respondents 4 to 6

to render necessary co-operation to the respondents 1 to 3 in the

matter.

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.

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

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 complaint to the 3rd respondent on 27.02.2021, 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

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

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 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

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

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 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

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