IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.30694/2017 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
M/S. INDUS TOWERS LTD., NO.12, TOWER-D, 7TH FLOOR, SUBRAMANYA ARCADE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-29, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRI MAHESH P.T. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHESH B.J., ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-1.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-1.
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560 064 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO EXTEND ADEQUATE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER’S MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER BEING INSTALLED IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND FURTHER TO EXTEND ADEQUATE PROTECTION TO THE WORKERS AND ASSETS CONNECTED WITH THE TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER THEREON.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for the respondents and file memo of appearance in four weeks.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to extend adequate protection to the petitioner’s 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.
3. The petitioner claims to have obtained the immovable property bearing Old Khatha No.57/3/4A, New BBMP Khatha No. 1968/4A, Doddagattahalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore-560 097 and had obtained permission from the local bodies. They are seeking to install a mobile tower in the said property. Since there was attempt to disrupt by the persons who were not authorized to object, the petitioner is stated to have lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Yelahanka New Town Police Station. The grievance of the petitioner is that the police authorities have not taken any action in the matter despite registering FIR. It is in that view, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned Government Advocate would submit that on registration of the FIR, the proceedings would be taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. She would however contend that if at all there is any dispute with regard to construction of the tower, it is essentially a civil dispute and the petitioner will have to obtain appropriate orders from the competent Civil Court. Hence she contends that the relief as sought is liable to be rejected.
5. Having noticed the rival contentions, certainly, it would have to be accepted that if any person is to be restrained from interfering with the activities of the petitioner and if such interference is for any reason with regard to right over the property or such other dispute, it would be open for the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from the Civil Court. However, no person can take law into his hands to prevent any lawful activities being done by the petitioner.
6. In such situation, on interference by any person, if law and order problem arises in the area, it would certainly open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional police and in such event, the jurisdictional police shall intervene to maintain law and order in the area.
7. Hence, with regard to the complaint already lodged with the jurisdictional police, the respondents shall proceed further in the matter and take the same to its logical conclusion as per law. In the meanwhile, if any complaint is lodged by the petitioner with the respondents with regard to any untoward incident in the area relating to the mobile tower, creating law and order issues, they shall take action in accordance with law.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Akc/bms