Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Indus Towers Limited Rep By Its Authorized Signatory S Prasanna vs The Commissioner Of Police And Others

Madras High Court|30 January, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.01.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN Crl.O.P.No.1267 of 2017 Indus Towers Limited rep. by its Authorized Signatory S.Prasanna ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Commissioner of Police, Tirupur, Tirupur District.
2. The Inspector of Police, Tirupur Rural Police Station, Tirupur District. ... Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the respondents to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner to carry on the mobile phone tower building and erection work at the premises being 1600 sq.ft. of vacant land in Balaji Nagar, Kovil Salai, Dharapuram in Survey No.369, Muthanampalayam Village, Tirupur Taluk, Tirupur District.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Anil Sandeep For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER The present criminal original petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner to carry on the mobile phone tower building and erection work in the land situated at Balaji Nagar, Kovil Salai, Dharapuram in Survey No.369, Muthanampalayam Village, Tirupur Taluk, Tirupur District.
2. The case of the petitioner is that they are carrying on the business of establishing and maintaining telecommunication infrastructure/assets in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and other parts of India. During the course of such business, they had entered into a lease agreement with one A.Rukumani in respect of the land situated at Balaji Nagar, Kovil Salai, Dharapuram in S.No.369, Muthanampalayam Village, Tirupur Taluk and District, which has been registered as Document No.9074/2016 dated 18.07.2016 on the file of the District Registrar, Tirupur and had obtained her consent for the building, erection and maintenance of the mobile phone tower. They had also obtained necessary approval from the Government authorities in this regard. On 13.10.2016, when the cluster Manager of the petitioner had gone to the said land for the purpose of mobile phone tower erection work, a group of people from that village had obstructed the same and had assaulted him and his driver and also caused damages to the vehicle, which resulted in registration of the FIR in Crime No.748 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 294(b), 323, 342, 427 & 506(i) IPC. In order to coerce him to withdraw the said case, a counter complaint was given by the group of villagers. Hence, the petitioner has requested the respondents to provide police protection to build the mobile phone tower. However, the said request was not considered by the respondents. Therefore, they have come up with the present petition for the above stated relief.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, having obtained all necessary permission, is trying to build and erect the mobile phone tower at the land in question, to cater the needs of mobile phone users residing in the locality, however, the same is objected by some people with an intention to extract money from them. Learned counsel further submitted that on earlier occasion, the petitioner has approached this Court for the very same purpose in respect of another land by filing Crl.OP.No.3437/2014, which was, by order dated 20.02.2014, disposed of, by granting police protection to the petitioner. Thus, he sought for similar direction in this petition also.
4. On the above submissions, I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the entire materials available on record.
5. This Court, by order dated 20.02.2014, has disposed of the petition in Crl.OP No.3437/2014, with the following direction:
“Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs the petitioner to make specific application regards dates on which police protection is necessary towards carrying out their function and for this specific purpose, the respondent police is directed to afford police protection at the cost of the petitioner.”
Following the same, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present petition in the above terms.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of, by directing the petitioner to make a fresh application with respect to the dates on which police protection is necessary for carrying out the work of mobile phone tower erection, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On making such application, the respondents are directed to afford police protection, so as to enable the petitioner to complete the said work. However, the same will be at the cost of the petitioner.
30.01.2017 rk Index: Yes/No NOTE: ISSUE ORDER COPY ON 03/02/2017 To
1. The Commissioner of Police, Tirupur, Tirupur District.
2. The Inspector of Police, Tirupur Rural Police Station, Tirupur District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
rk Crl.O.P.No.1267 of 2017 DATED: 30.1.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Indus Towers Limited Rep By Its Authorized Signatory S Prasanna vs The Commissioner Of Police And Others

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
30 January, 2017
Judges
  • R Mahadevan