THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.2643 of 2010 DATED: 16.07.2010 Between: Md. Shabuddin .. Petitioner And The Station House Officer, Dabilpura Police Station, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents ORDER: It appears, the petitioner herein and the 3rd respondent namely Reliance Infratel Limited, entered into a lease agreement in the year 2008, with regard to erection of cell tower by the 3rd respondent on the rooftop of the petitioner’s building bearing House No.17-6-548 situated at Dabilpura, Hyderabad, on payment of lease amount. Petitioner states that his neigbours gave no objection for erection of the cell tower and thereupon the 3rd respondent commenced the process of erection and also applied to the 2nd respondent - Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, for grant of permission for erection of tower, which is pending consideration. While so, the petitioner states some third parties demanded money from him, stating that if their demands are not complied with, they will lodge false complaints with the authorities and stop the work being carried on by the 3rd respondent. When he refused to comply with their demands, they influenced the 1st respondent, Station House Officer, Dabilpura Police Station, as well as the authorities of the 2nd respondent Corporation. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, at the instance of those third parties, the 1st and 2nd respondents are taking steps to demolish the tower erected by the 3rd respondent and that the 1st respondent is also interfering with his personal life and liberty. Hence, he filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. While issuing notice before admission on 09.02.2010, this Court directed the respondents not to demolish or remove the tower erected by the petitioner. The Assistant City Planner, Circle IV of the 2nd respondent Corporation filed detailed counter-affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent, wherein, while denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that, without obtaining prior permission, the 3rd respondent erected cell tower and installed the connected equipment on the rooftop of the petitioner’s building. Anticipating demolition of the said cell tower, which was erected unauthorizedly without obtaining permission, the 3rd respondent filed writ petition in W.P.No.12314 of 2009 before this Court and obtained interim orders, directing the respondents not to demolish or remove the towers erected by it, and that the said interim orders are still in force. It is further stated that the application submitted by the 3rd respondent, for grant of permission for erection of cell tower, was rejected on 19.04.2010. The 4th respondent Association, namely Dabeerpura Bagh-E- Lashkar Jung Welfare Association, who got impleaded on its own by filing W.P.M.P.No.5429 of 2010, also filed counter-affidavit, stating that, as the cell tower erected by the 3rd respondent unauthorisedly on the subject building, is posing health hazard to the health of the people in the locality, the 4th respondent Association submitted representation to the 2nd respondent, seeking to take necessary action in the matter. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent, along with police, visited the subject building of the petitioner on 03.02.2010. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home produced before this Court the written instructions obtained by him from the Inspector of Police, Dabeerpura Police Station, wherein the allegations of interference by the 1st respondent are denied and it is stated that he received complaints from the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent against each other as regards the erection of cell tower in question and except entering those complaints in the General Diary, no action was initiated by the respondent police. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. Since the 3rd respondent already filed another writ petition and obtained interim directions for non-demolition of the towers erected by it, the petitioner cannot have any fear of demolition of the tower erected by the 3rd respondent and no further directions need be issued in the present writ petition in that regard. So far as the allegation of the petitioner that the 1st respondent police is interfering with his possession of the subject building and his personal life and liberty, is concerned, the 1st respondent, in his written instructions, specifically denied the said allegation, stating that except entering the complaints received from the petitioner and the 4th respondent in the General Diary, no action was initiated by him. In view of the above, no further orders need be passed in the present writ petition. However, if the 4th respondent or any third parties are causing interference with the petitioner’s possession of the subject property, it is always open for him to approach the police concerned for redressal of his grievance. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 16th July, 2010 IBL