Indus Towers Limited vs The Superintendent Of Police
2023 Latest Caselaw 5014 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 5014 Mad
Judgement Date : 4 May, 2023

Madras High Court

Indus Towers Limited vs The Superintendent Of Police on 4 May, 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.05.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

W.P.No.13946 of 2023

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

1. The Superintendent of Police,
Vellore District.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Gudiyatham, Vellore District.

3. The Inspector of Police,
Town Police Station, Gudiyatham,
Vellore District.

4. The District Collector,
Vellore District.

5. The Tahsildar,
Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District.

6. The Commissioner,
Gudiyatham Municipality,
Vellore District. .. Respondents

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2

Prayer :- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to
direct the respondents 1 to 3 to provide necessary police protection to the
petitioner for their mobile phone tower works at the premises being
about 720 square feet of land at Plot No.30, Bhuvaneshwaripet, Seyur
Village, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District, on the representation to the
3rd respondent under Online Acknowledgment No.HRJ23050420, dated
18.03.2023 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.S.Santhosh,
Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the

respondents 1 to 3 to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner

for their mobile phone tower works at the premises measuring about 720

square feet of land at Plot No.30, Bhuvaneshwaripet, Seyur Village,

Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District, by considering the representation

made to the 3rd respondent under Online Acknowledgment

No.HRJ23050420, dated 18.03.2023 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 a Company

engaged, inter alia, in the business of establishing and maintaining https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

telecommunication infrastructure assets. While so, the petitioner is

commencing the work on one such tower at the premises of

Mrs..Sharmila and 4 others measuring about 720 square feet of land at

Plot No.30, Bhuvaneshwaripet, Seyur Village, Gudiyatham Taluk,

Vellore District, after entering into the lease agreement dated 28.02.2023

with the land owned and also obtaining his consent, and SACFA

approval from the WPC wing of the Department of Telecommunications

(DOT) of the Government of India. However, some third persons in the

area of the premises are objecting to the erection of the said tower for no

plausible reason whatsoever, with the intention of extorting and

extracting money from the petitioner. The petitioner made a

representation dated 31.12.2022 to the third respondent for police

protection. But no action has been taken. Hence, the petitioner has

approached this Court requesting for police protection for the erection of

the mobile phone tower.

3. 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, wherein the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

very same petitioner was a party.

4. 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 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

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.”

5. This Court has consistently taken the view that no one can be

prevented from erecting the mobile phone towers on a mere

apprehension about the effect of radiation from the mobile phone tower.

The apprehension does not have a scientific backing. Till a positive

finding is given in this regard, mobile phone towers cannot be prevented

to be installed on mere apprehensions.

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

respondents 1 to 3 to provide police protection to the petitioner for

erection of the mobile phone tower. The 1st respondent police shall

ensure that the entire process goes on in a smooth manner, without

giving raise to any law and order problem and the petitioner shall