Bharathi Electricals v. The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.06.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH Crl.OP No.9086 of 2016 Bharathi Electricals No.1, Renuga Nagar Dharga Road Zamin Pallavaram Chennai Rep. by its Manager Annamalai ..Petitioner Vs The Inspector of Police Mangadu Police Station Chennai.
.. Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to provide the effective police protection to the petitioner's company to erect the cell phone tower and to install all the telecommunication electrical and electronics equipments and its maintenance on the said BTS transmission tower at No. 19, Kirubananda Variyar Nagar, Ragunathapuram, Mangadu, Chennai - 600 122 comprising of 2400 sq.ft., of Land situated at S.No. 50/4 belongs to Mrs.V.Revathi, w/o. Vinayagam.
For Petitioner :
Mr. N.Umapathi For Respondent :
Mr.C.Emalias Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed to provide the effective police protection to the petitioner's company to erect the cell phone tower and to install all the telecommunication electrical and electronics equipments and its maintenance on the said BTS transmission tower at No. 19, Kirubananda Variyar Nagar, Ragunathapuram, Mangadu, Chennai - 600 122 comprising of 2400 sq.ft., of Land situated at S.No. 50/4 belongs to Mrs.V.Revathi, w/o. Vinayagam.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
3. In a similar case, this Court has passed the following order:-
" 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 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 Hon'ble 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."
4. In the light of the above, the petitioner is directed to give a fresh representation in person to the respondent and on receipt of the same, the respondent is directed to consider the representation and take action in accordance with law by giving police protection, provided the petitioner produces sufficient materials in support of his claim.
5. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.
Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS II ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar sms
To 1.
The Inspector of Police Mangadu Police Station Chennai.
2.
The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
1 cc to M/s.N. Umapathy, Advocate, Sr. 29306 Crl.OP No.9086 of 2016 SAI (CO) kk 10/6