Madras High Court
Indus Towers Limited vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 March, 2026
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M. Nirmal Kumar
WP Crl. No. 406 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
WP Crl. No. 406 of 2026
Indus Towers Limited
Rep by its Authorized Signatory
Mr.Paridhi Arasu,
No.5, ESPEE IT Park,
5th Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Ekkatuthangal, Chennai - 600032.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Superintendent of Police
Tirupathur District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Tirupathur District.
3. The Inspector of Police
Vaniyambadi Town Police Station,
Tirupathur District.
4. The District Collector,
Thirupathur District.
5. The Tahsildar
Vaniyambadi Taluk,
Tirupathur.
6. The Commissioner,
Vaniyambadi Municipality,
Thirupathur District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: The writ petition criminal filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:58 pm )
WP Crl. No. 406 of 2026
provide necessary police protection to the petitioner for their mobile phone
tower works at the premises being about 1200 square feet of land and comprised
in T.S.No.18/2, in Chennai to Bangalore Truck Road, Vaniyambadi, Tirupathur
District, on the representation dated 14.01.2026 sent by SPAD, and direct the
respondents 4 to 6 to render necessary co-operation to this Honble Court deems
fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Anil Sandeep
For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R1 To R3
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner for their mobile phone tower works at the premises being about 1200 square feet of land and comprised in T.S.No.18/2, in Chennai to Bangalore Truck Road, Vaniyambadi, Tirupathur District, on the representation dated 14.01.2026 sent by SPAD, and direct the respondents 4 to 6 to render necessary co-operation to the respondents 1 to 3.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of Operation and Maintenance of Mobile phone towers across India for all the mobile phone operators/service providers providing broadband Internet services and other allied services. For the said purpose, cell phone tower is 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.
__________ Page2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:58 pm ) WP Crl. No. 406 of 2026 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, some people with vested interest claiming to be neighbours have been causing hindrance and preventing the workers from carrying out the construction work. In this regard, the petitioner gave a representation to the 3 rd respondent on 14.01.2026, seeking police protection. However, the 3rd respondent had not acted upon the said representation and therefore, the present Petition has been filed.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the 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 dt.28.06.2018.
5.It will be appropriate to extract the relevant portions of the order in Crl.O.P.No.16618 of 2018, which 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 __________ Page3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:58 pm ) WP Crl. No. 406 of 2026 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.” __________ Page4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:58 pm ) WP Crl. No. 406 of 2026
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 3 rd respondent police to provide police protection to the petitioner for erection of the cell phone tower. The 3rd respondent police shall ensure that the entire process goes on in a smooth manner, without giving raise to any law and order problem.
8. This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.
03-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No sms __________ Page5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:58 pm ) WP Crl. No. 406 of 2026 To
1. The Superintendent of Police Tirupathur District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirupathur District.
3. The Inspector of Police Vaniyambadi Town Police Station, Tirupathur District.
4. The District Collector, Thirupathur District.
5. The Tahsildar Vaniyambadi Taluk, Tirupathur.
6. The Commissioner, Vaniyambadi Municipality, Thirupathur District.
7. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
__________ Page6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:58 pm ) WP Crl. No. 406 of 2026 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
sms WP Crl. No. 406 of 2026 03-03-2026 __________ Page7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 05:36:58 pm )