Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dwarapureddy Varaha Trinadh Ganesh vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 November, 2025
APHC010492882025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 25989/2025
Between:
1. DWARAPUREDDY VARAHA TRINADH GANESH,, S/O
MAHALAKSHMI NAIDU, R/AT HOUSE NO. 9-7-41, F. NO.
102, GROUND FLOOR, CHANDU RESIDENCY,
SIVAJIPALEM, BESIDE SHIRIDI SAI TEMPLE,
SHIVAJIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH -
530017
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATIONA AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. M/S CHANDU RESIDENCY FLAT OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT P PADMINI,
W/O P SATYANARAYANA, CHANDU RESIDENCY,
SIVAJIPALEM, BESIDE SHIRIDI SAI TEMPLE,
VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530017.
3. ATC TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, REP. BY
ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, OFFICE AT 404, 4TH
FLOOR. SKYLINE ICON, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD,
ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA - 400059.
4. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 530001.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the HN, J W.P.No.25989_2025 2 High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ Order or director particular, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent no.2 in formation of M/s Chandu Residency Flat Owners Association under Document No. 145 of 2022, dated 26.02.2022, its execution of the Lease Deed dated 21.03.2023 and the action of Respondent No. 3, ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd in issuing permission for installatipn of cell tower to respondent no.2 without obtaining the mandatory requisite permits as illegal, void, unjust, arbitrary mounting to infringement of Fundamental Rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and non-binding on the Petitioner and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd Respondent, as the subject matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Honble Court in K. Janardhan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2018 LawSuit (Hyd) 58, further directing the Respondent No. 3, ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., to immediately cease operation of the cell tower installed on the rooftop of Chandu Residency and to remove all related infrastructure forthwith, thereby restoring the rooftop to its sanctioned residential use and to remit the outstanding license fee of Rs. 45,000/- for a period of three months, along with interest at the rate of 12percent per annum from the respective due dates till the date of realization, as per the terms of the Leave and License .Agreement dated 11.02.2016 further directing the Respondents No. 1 and 4, namely the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, to ensure strict compliance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2012, the Department of Telecommunications Guidelines, G.O.Ms.No.146 dated 19.06.2015, and G.O.Ms.No.334 dated 09.10.2012, and to initiate appropriate action against the unauthorized cell tower installed by respondent no.2 under Clause F(vii) of G.O.Ms.No.146 dated 19.06.2015 awarding compensation for the financial losses, emotional distress, and health risks caused due to the Respondents actions and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the HN, J W.P.No.25989_2025 3 petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to suspend operation of the cell tower on Chandu Residency's rooftop forthwith and to restrain M/s Chandu Residency Flat Owners Association from acting on behalf of the flat owners' association or entering into further agreements concerning the rooftop or common areas pending disposal of the writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. K V VIJAYA KUMAR
2. GHANTA SRIDHAR
3. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP HN, J W.P.No.25989_2025 4 The Court made the following order:
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action on the part of respondent no.2 in formation of M/s Chandu Residency Flat Owners Association, under Document No. 145 of 2022, dated 26.02.2022, its execution of the Lease Deed dated 21.03.2023, and the action of respondent No. 3, ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., in issuing permission for installation of a cell tower to respondent No.2 without obtaining the mandatory requisite permits.
2. A direction also is sought to remit an amount of Rs. 45,000/- for a period of three months, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective due dates till the date of realization, as per the terms of the Leave and License Agreement dated 11.02.2016, further directing the respondents Nos. 1 and 4 to ensure strict compliance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2012, the Department of Telecommunications Guidelines, G.O.Ms.No.146 dated 19.06.2015, and G.O.Ms.No.334 dated 09.10.2012.
The petitioner also seeks other consequential reliefs.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the installation of the cell tower on the building of the petitioner is in violation of G.O.Ms.No.146 and is posing health hazards to the residents and adjoining flats as well. It is submitted that a resolution was passed by the flat owners' HN, J W.P.No.25989_2025 5 association encroaching upon the rights of the petitioner, and that a Leave of Licence Agreement dated 05.09.2011 with Viom Networks Limited for installation of a cell tower on the rooftop in M/s Chandu Residency was entered into. The lease amount was agreed to be payable on a monthly basis. A revised lease amount of Rs.15,000/- with effect from 15.10.2014, with a provision for escalation at 10% every three years, was also finalized.
It is submitted that the 3rd respondent acquired Viom Networks Limited and failed to remit the outstanding licence fee of Rs.45,000/-. In that regard, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking action against the 3rd respondent for failure to remove the said cell tower. It is also submitted that radiation emissions of the cell tower are exposing the residents to severe health risks.
4. The counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No.2, and the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, state that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the erstwhile Viom Networks and facilitated the erection of cell tower in the year 2011 itself, and that the agreement was revised insofar as the payment of licence fee with a provision for escalation of the lease amount every three years. It is also stated in the counter that the petitioner was receiving the lease rentals from the erstwhile operator as if he were the owner of the entire building. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the cell tower HN, J W.P.No.25989_2025 6 has been existing from the year 2011 onwards and that the objection of the petitioner at this point of time, after lease payments were being remitted from the same, is unfounded. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent is presently operating the cell tower and that the 3rd respondent is paying the lease rental to the petitioner.
5. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that this Court has considered a similar issue in W.P.Nos.3341 of 2019 and 29089 of 2025, and disposed off the writ petition leaving it open for the petitioners therein to approach the Telecom Enforcement Resource and Monetary (TERM) Cell, Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, for redressal of their grievance with regard to radiation, permissions, and related issues.
6. Recording the submissions, the present writ petition is disposed off leaving it open for the petitioner to approach the TERM Cell. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 27.11.2025 NKA HN, J W.P.No.25989_2025 7 261 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.25989 of 2025 Date: 27.11.2025 NKA