Permission granted by the statutory authority for the erection of a cell tower is conclusive; private objections cannot override such permission. The High Court upholds settled precedent, confirming binding authority for similar disputes relating to infrastructure projects, particularly in telecommunications.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/2202/2024 of SUNKALA RAMATHULASI Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, CNR: APHC010038692024 |
| Date of Registration | 29-01-2024 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Justice Harinath.N |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms prior decision in W.P. No. 20312 of 2023 |
| Type of Law | Administrative / Infrastructure Regulation / Telecom |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
Once a mobile connectivity operator obtains statutory permission and pays requisite fees, private parties cannot obstruct erection of cell towers. Any grievance relating to radiation or similar issues must be raised before the appropriate forum, not in writ proceedings. The Court reconfirms established legal principles regarding the finality of administrative permissions unless reversed by competent authority. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | W.P. No. 20312 of 2023 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Prior Andhra Pradesh High Court precedent concerning cell tower construction. No embargo where all legal permissions are obtained. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners challenged the construction of a cell tower by the 5th respondent for lack of permission. During proceedings, the 4th respondent granted permission, and requisite fees were paid. Construction was completed but tower was non-operational due to court order. Court directed that any radiation-related grievances be placed before appropriate authorities. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering challenges to cell tower/infrastructure construction |
| Follows | W.P. No. 20312 of 2023 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that administrative/granting authority’s permission is the conclusive prerequisite for cell tower erection.
- No writ relief available to objectors when statutory permission and compliance is demonstrated.
- Grievances about alleged health hazards (e.g., radiation) must be presented to appropriate technical/administrative forums, not in writ petitions.
- Lawyers opposing telecommunications infrastructure construction cannot use mere allegations of procedural irregularity once permission is on record.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the petitioner’s main grievance was the alleged absence of permission for cell tower construction.
- It was established that statutory permission was granted by the competent authority (4th respondent) and all legal formalities, including payment of fees, were completed by the 5th respondent.
- Construction was finished but the operation of the tower was stayed under interim court orders.
- The Court relied on its prior decision in W.P. No. 20312 of 2023, which held that private parties cannot obstruct the construction of cell towers by licensed operators once due statutory permissions are obtained.
- The Court clarified that any complaints regarding emission of radiation or related matters need to be addressed before specialized authorities, not via writ jurisdiction.
- Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged that the 5th respondent was erecting a cell tower without obtaining requisite permission.
Respondent (5th Respondent)
- Demonstrated that permission was granted by the competent authority (4th respondent) on 07.03.2024.
- Asserted that requisite fees for permission were paid.
- Confirmed that construction had been completed but the tower was not operational due to a court order.
Respondents 3 & 4
No separate specific argument noted in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner challenged the construction of a cell tower by the 5th respondent, asserting that no permission had been granted. During the proceedings, it was established that the 4th respondent – the competent authority – had issued permission on 07.03.2024 and all required fees were paid. The tower’s construction was completed, but its operation was stayed due to an interim judicial order. The petitioner maintained grievances regarding the location and possible radiation hazards.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment addressed the requirement for operators to obtain statutory permission and complete procedural formalities (including fee payment) before erecting a cell tower. The Court affirmed that once such permission is duly granted by the competent authority, no further judicial embargo can be imposed at the instance of private parties except through challenges before appropriate statutory or administrative forums (particularly for technical issues like radiation).
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The decision affirms established law as set out in W.P. No. 20312 of 2023.