Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/22629/2009 of M/s. Tower Vision India Private Limited, Vs Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, on 1 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 22629/2009 Between: 1. M/S. TOWER VISION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,, FIRST FLOOR, LE
APHC010063092009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION NO: 22629/2009
Between:
1. M/S. TOWER VISION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,, FIRST
FLOOR, LE BENAKA, D.NO. 6-3-248, ROAD NO. 1, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD. REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROJECT MANAGER
...PETITIONER
AND
1. GREATER
VISAKHAPATNAM
MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION,
REP
BY
ITS
COMMISSIONER,
VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
2. EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A P
LTD, (A.P.E.P.D.C.L.) VISAKHAPATNAM REP BY ITS
DIRECTOR, OPERATION, VISAKHAPATNAM.
3. EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A P
LTD, (A.P.E.P.D.C.L.) VISAKHAPATNAM REP BY ITS
ASSISTANT ENGINEER OPERATIONS, GOPALAPATNAM
TOWN, VISAKHAPATNAM-29
...RESPONDENT(S):
NJS,J
W.P.NO.22629 OF 2009
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toissue a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned Memo No. D18/O/APEPDCL/VSP/ADE(1)/D.No. 06/09
dated 08-4-2009 stating that the regular power supply will not be released without submission of No Objection Certificate from the 1st respondent, without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without following due process of law is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and ultra virus of the power of the respondents IA NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP 29378 OF 2009
petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to release the power supply to the cell towers erected by the petitioner company in the jurisdiction of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation by suspending the operation of the impugned Memo No.
D19/O/APEPDCL/VSP/ADE(1) D.NO. 06/09 dated 08-4-2009
issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition IA NO: 1 OF 2010(WVMP 1510 OF 2010
petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim orders passed in WPMP No. 29378/2009 in WP NO. 22629/2009 dated 22-10-2009
IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 95620 OF 2012
petition, the High Court may be pleased
NJS,J
W.P.NO.22629 OF 2009
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. RAMA RAO GHANTA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY(SC FOR GVMC)
2. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)
3. O MANOHER REDDY
The Court made the following:
NJS,J
W.P.NO.22629 OF 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that, the 2nd respondent issued a memo dated 08.04.2009 insisting the petitioner to obtain a no objection certificate from the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation for releasing regular power supply in the cell phone tower on the rooftops/land-based towers.
2. A learned Judge, by an order dated 22.10.2009, while admitting the writ petition, directed the respondents to release power supply to the cell towers erected by the petitioner company without insisting upon production of a ‘no objection certificate’ issued by the local body.
3. Learned counsel on both sides, on instructions, submits that pursuant to the said interim order, power supply was released.
4. In the light of the above stated position, the cause does not survive for further adjudication. The writ petition is, therefore, closed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA 02.03.2026 LSP