Madras High Court

M/S.Ascend Telecom ... vs The Superintendent Of Police on 1 July, 2022

                                                             W.P. Nos.16492, 16498 & 16501 of 2022



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                              DATED: 01.07.2022

                                                  CORAM:

                          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

                                  W.P. Nos.16492, 16498 & 16501 of 2022
                                                   and
                                  W.M.P.Nos.15784, 15787 &15792 of 2022


                W.P. No.16492 of 2022:

                M/s.Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited
                Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
                Mr.Tamilselvan,
                Old No.32, New No.54,
                Butt Road, St Thomas Mount,
                Near Kathipara Junction,
                Chennai - 600 016.                                       ... Petitioner
                                                   Vs.
                1. The Superintendent of Police,
                   Tiruvannamalai.

                2. The Inspector of Police,
                   Taluk Police Station,
                   Tiruvannamalai.                                       ...Respondents

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

W.P. Nos.16492, 16498 & 16501 of 2022

transmission tower at the lease site namely site ID No.ADIYUR situated at Ayan Punja Survey No.69/12B, measuring Acre 0.08.1/4 Cent, Adaiyur Village, Thiruvannamalai Taluk, Thiruvannamalai Joint II Sub Registration District, Thiruvannamalai Registration District measuring to an extent of 1200 Sq.ft.

W.P. No.16498 of 2022

M/s.Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited Represented by its Authorized Signatory, Mr.Tamilselvan, Old No.32, New No.54, Butt Road, St Thomas Mount, Near Kathipara Junction, Chennai - 600 016. ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore.

                2. The Inspector of Police,
                   Taluk Police Station,
                   Cuddalore.                                            ...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner Company and its staff and subordinates to erect, commissioning of equipments and to radiate the transmission tower at the lease site namely site ID No.CDBM65 situated at Ayan Punja Survey No.183/5B, C.Thandeswaranallur Village, Chidambaram Taluk, Chidambaram Joint I Sub Registrar District, Chidambaram

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

W.P. Nos.16492, 16498 & 16501 of 2022

Registration District measuring to an extent of 1200 Sq.ft.

W.P. No.16501 of 2022

1. The Superintendent of Police, Namakkal.

2. The Inspector of Police, Paramathivelur Police Station, Namakkal. ...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner Company and its staff and subordinates to erect, commissioning of equipments and to radiate the transmission tower at the lease site namely site ID No.POTNR7 situated at Natham Survey No.276/20, Pothanur Panchayat, Velur Sub Registration District, Namakkal Registration District measuring to an extent of 1200 Sq.ft. out of 1755 Sq.ft.

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

W.P. Nos.16492, 16498 & 16501 of 2022

For Petitioner : Mr.A.M.Venkata Krishnan (All WP's) For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan (All WP's) Additional Public Prosecutor

COMMON ORDER

These Writ petitions are filed to direct the the respondents to provide

adequate police protection to the petitioner Company and its staff and

subordinates to erect, commissioning of equipments and to radiate the

transmission tower at the lease sites.

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 owners 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

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

W.P. Nos.16492, 16498 & 16501 of 2022

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

hindrance and preventing the workers from carrying out the construction

work. In this regard, the petitioner gave a complaint to the 2nd respondent

on 14.06.2022, seeking police protection. However, the 2nd respondent had

not acted upon the said complaint and therefore, the present Petitions have

been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

the issues involved in these petitions are 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:-

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

W.P. Nos.16492, 16498 & 16501 of 2022

“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 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

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

W.P. Nos.16492, 16498 & 16501 of 2022

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

second respondent police to provide police protection to the petitioner for

erection of the cell phone tower. The second respondent police shall ensure

that the entire process goes on in a smooth manner, without giving raise to

any law and order problem.

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