Bombay High Court
Indus Towers Limited Formally Known As ... vs Grampanchayat Chikhalkol And Anr on 2 January, 2023
Author: M.M.Sathaye
Bench: R. D. Dhanuka, M.M.Sathaye
Yugandhara Patil
16-WP-15779-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 15779 OF 2022
Indus Towers Limited ... Petitioner
Versus
Grampanchayat Chikhalhol, Sangli & Ors. ... Respondents
YUGANDHARA
SHARAD
PATIL ******
Digitally signed by
YUGANDHARA
SHARAD PATIL Mr. Anil Anturkar Senior Advocate i/b Mr. S.B. Deshpande for the
Date: 2023.01.05
10:52:27 +0530
Petitioner.
None for the Respondents.
******
CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND M.M.SATHAYE JJ.
DATE : 2nd JANUARY, 2023
P.C. :-
1. The Petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus against respondent No. 1 not to obstruct the installation of mobile tower of the petitioner as mentioned in prayer clause (b) of the petition and writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned resolution no. 7 passed by respondent no. 1 thereby cancelling no objection certificate and has stopped work of mobile tower of the petitioner.
2. Mr. Anturkar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner 1 /4 ::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2023 03:06:56 ::: Yugandhara Patil 16-WP-15779-2022.doc submitted that no objection certificate was already granted by respondent no. 1 for installation of mobile tower. After commencing the work in pursuance of the said no objection certificate, on the complaint of residents, respondent no. 1 arbitrarily cancelled NOC granted on 30th June 2022 by communication dated 2nd August 2022. He relied upon judgments annexed to the petition at Exhibit G,H and I.
3. Learned senior counsel also placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Goa Bench of this Court on 14 th December 2022 in Writ Petition No. 434 of 2022 in case of Indus Towers Limited Vs. The State of Goa and Others and more particularly paragraph no. 10 and submitted that, in similar facts Goa Bench of this Court has granted interim relief.
4. Learned senior counsel on the instructions states that if the petitioner is allowed to continue construction of the mobile tower, petitioner would not commission said tower without further permission from this Court. Statement is accepted. 2 /4 ::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2023 03:06:56 ::: Yugandhara Patil 16-WP-15779-2022.doc
5. Issue notice upon respondents, returnable on 30 th January 2023. Humdast permitted.
3. In addition to the court notice, the petitioner is also permitted to serve the respondents by private notice, by all permissible modes of services available in law.
4. Respondents to file an affidavit-in-reply, within two weeks from the date of service of the papers and proceedings with a copy to be served upon the petitioner's advocate simultaneously.
5. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks from the date of the service of the affidavit-in-reply upon the Petitioners.
6. The Petitioner is at liberty to carry on construction of mobile tower on the property described in prayer clause (b) of the petition, however, shall not commission said tower without obtaining further permission from this Court It is made clear that this permission is granted to the petitioner subject to further orders as may be passed by this Court on the next date after hearing respondents. Petitioner shall not claim any equity for carrying on construction work of 3 /4 ::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2023 03:06:56 ::: Yugandhara Patil 16-WP-15779-2022.doc mobile tower, in view of the permission granted by this Court, in case interim order passed by this court is vacated by this Court after hearing parties on the next date.
7. Petitioner to communicate this order to the respondent for information and compliance. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
[M.M.SATHAYE,J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.] 4 /4 ::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2023 03:06:56 :::