APHC010038692024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 2202/2024 Between: Sunkala Ramathulasi and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T D PANI KUMAR 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 4. Mattegunta.Sudhir, Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps, Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: -2- W.P. No.2202 OF 2024 Date of order: 16.10.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.2202 OF 2024 ORDER 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the construction of cell tower by the 5th respondent without obtaining any permission. 2. This Court, vide order dated 01.02.2024, directed the Gram Panchayat to take necessary steps in accordance with law against the erection of the tower by the 5th respondent. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent is erecting a cell tower without obtaining any permission. As seen from the counter filed by the 5th respondent, the 4th respondent has granted permission for erecting a cell tower on 07.03.2024. The 5th respondent has also paid requisite fee for grant of permission. In pursuance of the said permission, the 5th respondent has also constructed the cell tower however it could not be put in operation on account of the order of this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent and the learned standing counsel for respondents 3 and 4. 5. The issue of the erection of cell towers has been addressed by this Court in W.P. No. 20312 of 2023, wherein it was held that the petitioners cannot obstruct the erection of cell towers by mobile -3- W.P. No.2202 OF 2024 Date of order: 16.10.2025 connectivity operators. Once the operating company complies with the necessary requirements for obtaining permission, there can be no embargo on erecting the cell towers. 6. In the present case, the 4th respondent has granted permission to the 5th respondent, who has completed the construction. However, the cell tower could not be put into operation in view of the interim orders passed by this Court. The petitioner would have to agitate the issue regarding the emission of radiation or related issues before the appropriate authority and not before this Court. 7. As the construction is completed in pursuance of the permission granted by the 4th respondent, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered. 8. On these considerations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV