C.R.P.No.2270 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.09.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

Civil Revision Petition No. 2270 of 2023

The Residents of Sedan Kuttai 2^nd Cross Street,

Tindivanam,

Represented by

1. Babu

2. A.Jayanthi

3. Jothi

4. Arul Prakash

.. Petitioners

Versus

The Government of Tamilnadu,

Represented by

1. The District Collector,

Villupuram.

2. The Sub Collector,

Tindivanam.

3. The Tahsildhar,

Tindivanam.

4. The District Environment Engineer,

Villupuram.

5. The Executive Engineer,

TANGEDCO,

Tindivanam.

1/8

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

C.R.P.No.2270 of 2023

6. The Commissioner,

Tindivanam Municipality,

Tindivanam.

7. P.Rajendran

8. R.Kantha

9. M/s.Ascent Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,

Authorised Signatory,

Mr.Tamilselvan,

Old.No.32, New No.54, Butt Road,

St.Thomas Mount,

Near Kathipara Junction,

Chennai – 16.

.. Respondents

Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of

India, to set aside the Docket order in unumbered O.S. of 2023 dated

28.04.2023 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Tindivanam.

For Petitioners

:

Mr. N. Suresh

For Respondents

:

Mr. S.P. Karthik,

Government Advocate (for R1 to R4)

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Docket order in

unumbered O.S. of 2023 dated 28.04.2023 on the file of the Principal District

Munsif Court, Tindivanam.

2.

The revision petitioners have filed the unnumbered plaint praying

to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 6 from granting

permission to launch 5G cell phone tower in the suit property and to restrain

2/8

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

C.R.P.No.2270 of 2023

the defendants 7 to 9 from launching and/or erecting 5G cell phone tower in

the suit property.

3.

As per the averments in the plaint, the plaintiffs are residents of

Second Cross Street, Sedankuttai Village, Sedan Kuttai, Tindivanam. It is

stated that there are several residential houses constructed in the second cross

street to which patta was also granted. It is further stated that there are elders,

small children and women are residing in the street. While so, the defendants 7

and 8 as power of attorney agents of one Sasikala have purchased the A

Schedule property in the suit. In fact, the A Schedule property is classified as

residential house or meant for residential use and it cannot be exposed for

commercial activity. After purchasing the residential plot, the defendants 7

and 8 in collusion with the 9th defendant attempted to erect a high powered

cell phone tower. According to the plaintiffs, if a cell phone tower is permitted

to be erected in the residential colony, it would result in severe health hazard

to the habitants in the locality. Therefore, the plaintiffs opposed for erecting

the cell phone tower on 20.03.2023. However, the defendants 7 to 9 with the

help of police force, restrained the villagers from preventing the defendants 7

to 9 from erecting the cell phone tower. Therefore, the plaintiffs have

instituted the suit.

3/8

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

C.R.P.No.2270 of 2023

4.

When the suit was presented, the learned Principal District

Munsif, Tindivanam refused to entertain the suit and passed an order dated

28.04.2023 rejecting the plaint at the threshold without even numbering the

suit. In the order dated 28.04.2023, it was stated that this Court has dismissed

similar nature of cases by stating that there are no materials on record to

conform that erecting a cell phone tower would result in health hazard to the

habitants due to exposure to low level electro magnetic field. It was also

reasoned that there is no bar from the Union or State Government to erect

towers in residential, public and other buildings. Accordingly, the learned

Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam declined to number