2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 35371
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice N. ANAND VENKATESH
INDUS TOWERS LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
THE DISRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
Public apprehension regarding cell tower radiation does not constitute a valid ground to prevent installation when scientific evidence is lacking.
Headnote:
Police Protection - Telecom Services - G.O.Ms.No.2 - The court directed police to protect the petitioner during cell tower installation, asserting no hindrance to modern technology based on unscientific fears about radiation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought police protection for installing cell phone towers after local residents caused disruptions to their work. The government had exempted telecom companies from such hindrances through prior orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the petitioner had a right to install the cell phone towers and that interference based on speculation about radiation was not legally justified. Adequate police protection was mandated.
Issues: Whether the respondents are obligated to provide police protection for the petitioner to install cell phone towers despite local opposition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that interference in the installation of cell phone towers based on unfounded fears of radiation is unacceptable, reinforcing the right to install telecommunications infrastructure.
Final Decision: Police protection was ordered for the petitioner to proceed with cell tower installation without obstruction.
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed for a direction directing the respondents 2 to 7 to provide necessary, effective police protection to the petitioner for installing the cell phone towers falling within the district administration of Chengalpattu and within the jurisdiction of the second respondent and prevent any hindrances and obstacles from any third parties, groups, mobs.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of providing telecom services viz., broadband Internet services and other allied services. For the said purpose, cell phone towers are 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, the residents of the area came to the spot and started causing hindrance to the company officials from carrying out the construction work. The petitioner also gave complaints dated 19th, 20th, 21st and 25th April 2023 to the respondents to provide them with protection. Since no action has been taken, the present petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for 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 .
5. It will be appropriate to extract the relevant portions of the order in Crl.O.P.No.16618 of 2018 and the same 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 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 respondents 2 to 7 to provide police protection to the petitioner for erection of the cell phone tower. The respondents 2 to 7 police shall ensure that the entire process goes on in a smooth manner, without giving raise to any law and order problem an