VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

Sri Seetambar Sthanakvasi Jain Sangh, v. The Commissioner

DISPOSED OF
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
9 March 2026
Bench
Abdul Quddhoseauthor
Case no.
WP 7499/2026

Judgment

ORDER This writ petition has been filed to direct the first respondent to remove the mobile communication tower put up by the fifth respondent in the petitioner's premises.

¶2Admittedly, the aforesaid mobile tower is idle and has not been used by the fifth respondent. Admittedly, there is a contract entered into between the petitioner and the fifth respondent for the erection of the mobile communication tower in the petitioner's premises. When there is a contract and when the mobile tower has not been put to use and is remaining idle and is not causing any nuisance to any other third party, the question of directing the official respondents to remove the mobile communication tower does not arise. The only remedy available to the petitioner for the removal of the said mobile communication tower is to initiate proceedings as per the contractual terms available under the contract entered into between the petitioner and the fifth respondent.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is an arbitration clause in the contract entered into between the petitioner and the fifth respondent. Therefore, necessarily, the petitioner will have to initiate appropriate proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against the fifth respondent for the removal of the subject mobile communication tower and they cannot seek for removal, by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by making the official respondents as parties, who are in no way responsible for the removal of the said mobile communication tower.

¶4For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to initiate appropriate legal action against the fifth respondent for the removal of the subject mobile communication tower, by initiating legal proceedings as per the contractual terms available under the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the fifth respondent. No costs. 09-03-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes ab To

1.The commissioner Greater chennai Corporation, Ripon Building, Poonamallee high Raod, Chennai 600 003

2.Special Director General Department of telecommunications Tamil Nadu Telecom complex, 3rd FloorNo 6, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chenani 600 008

3.Deputy Dirctor General Telecom Regulatory Authortiy of India, 3rd Floor, 124, Kellys Road, Purasaiwakkam, Chennai 600 010

4.Authorized signaoty GTL Infrastructure Limited, Reg. Office Global Vision Electronic, Sadan II, MIDC, TTC, Industrial Area, Mahape, Navi Mumbai 400 710

5.Authorized Signatory Chennai Newwork infrastructure Limited, Rep office at No 34/21 DL, New No 403./L, Samso Tower, 7th Floor, Pantheason Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 ABDUL QUDDHOSE J. ab

09-03-2026

Case details

Parties and counsel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-03-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE 1. Sri Seetambar Sthanakvasi Jain Sangh, Rep by Authorized Signatory Mangal Chand, No 30, jain Bhavan, Pulianthope High Road, Chennai 600 Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Commissioner Greater chennai Corporation, Ripon Building, Poonamallee high Raod, Chennai 600 003 2.Special Director General Department of telecommunications Tamil Nadu Telecom complex, 3rd FloorNo 6, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chenani 600 008 3.Deputy Dirctor General Telecom Regulatory Authortiy of India, 3rd Floor, 124, Kellys Road, Purasaiwakkam, Chennai 600 010 4.Authorized signaoty GTL Infrastructure Limited, Reg. Office Global Vision Electronic, Sadan II, MIDC, TTC, Industrial Area, Mahape, Navi Mumbai 400 710 5.Authorized Signatory Chennai Newwork infrastructure Limited, Rep office at No 34/21 DL, New No 403./L, Samso Tower, 7th Floor, Pantheason Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 Respondent(s) PRAYER Directing the 1st respondent herein to consider the petitioners representation dated 14.11.2025 to inspect the petitioners premises and to take necessary action in accordance with applicable laws to ensure the removal of the unsafe and unauthorized mobile communication tower and pass For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Sasikumar For Respondent(s): Mr.E.C.Ramesh,SC For R1 Mr.Rajesh Vivekananda,DSGI For R2 and R5

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.