SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24257

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
M/S ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 11916/2026



##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:20704 WP No. 11916 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

WRIT PETITION NO. 11916 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

M/S. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD.,

REGISTERED OFFICE AT -

UNIT NO.410, NEW MUNICIPAL NO.9-1-87 AND

119/1/4F/UNIT NO.10, 4TH FLOOR, EDEN AMSRI SQUARE,

ST. JOHNS ROAD, SECUNDERABAD,

TELANGANA - 500 003.

A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956.

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA BRANCH OFFICE AT

A SANGEETHA TOWER, Location:

HIGH NO.3, 80 FEET ROAD, COURT OF INDIRA NAGAR, KARNATAKA

BANGALORE - 560 038.

REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,

S. RAVI SHETTY, S/O. SRI. SUBBRAMANYA SHETTI.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH B J., ADVOCATE)

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:20704 WP No. 11916 of 2026

HC-KAR AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA,

BENGALURU.

REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, INFANTRY ROAD,

BENGALURU.

3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NANDHINI LAYOUT POLICE STATION,

BENGALURU.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, AGA)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO EXTEND ADEQUATE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONERS MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER BEING INSTALLED IN THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND FURTHER TO EXTEND ADEQUATE PROTECTION TO THE WORKERS AND ASSETS CONNECTED WITH THE

TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER THEREON AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:20704 WP No. 11916 of 2026

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

1. Captioned petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to provide adequate police protection to enable the petitioner to install a mobile telecommunication

tower in the petition schedule property.

2. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, submits that the jurisdictional police officer has already issued an endorsement indicating his readiness and willingness to extend necessary police protection to the petitioner–company, in the event a request either oral or written is made. The said submission and endorsement are placed on

record.

3. The material on record would clearly demonstrate that the petitioner–company, which is engaged in the business of establishing telecommunication infrastructure, has obtained all requisite licences,

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:20704 WP No. 11916 of 2026

HC-KAR

permissions and statutory approvals from the competent authorities under the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Karnataka Municipal Corporations Telecommunication Infrastructure and Underground Optical Fibre Cable Rules/Bye-laws, 2021. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner has entered into a valid licence/lease agreement with the owner of the scheduled property, thereby lawfully securing possessory and user rights to erect and

maintain a mobile telecommunication tower.

4. Once such statutory permissions are granted by the competent authorities in accordance with the governing regulations, the petitioner–company acquires a legitimate and enforceable right to proceed with the installation of the telecommunication tower, which is an essential infrastructure facility serving public utility. Any obstruction or interference by third

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:20704 WP No. 11916 of 2026

HC-KAR

parties, particularly neighbouring residents, dehors any legal sanction, cannot be countenanced in law and would amount to unlawful interference with the petitioner’s lawful exercise of its rights. The records further indicate that despite such lawful entitlement, certain neighbouring persons have indulged in acts of obstruction, thereby impeding the petitioner’s activities, which constrained the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional police seeking protection and, upon alleged inaction, to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this

Court.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top