Karnataka High Court
Indus Tower Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 10 September, 2014
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WP 39915-916/2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.39915-16/2014 (GM-KEB)
BETWEEN
INDUS TOWERS LTD
VAKIL SQUARE,
#56 BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 029.
REP BY ITS S.P.A. HOLDER
SRI. YASHWANTH C.S. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.GURURAJ D.M., ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REGIONAL OFFICE NO.9,
GAYATHRIPURAM,
MYSORE.
3. CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY
LIMITED,
NO.927, L.J. AVENUE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
NEW KANTHA RAJ URS ROAD,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSORE-52009
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
WP 39915-916/2014
2
4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V),
CHAMUNDESHWARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY LIMITED,
CENTRAL SUB-DIVISION,
M.P.L. BUILDING, SE HARDSHA ROAD,
MYSORE-570001.
5. DR. M.E. PUTTANARASAIAH
S/O ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
SRI, ANUGRAHA VYDHYESHWARA HOSPITAL,
VINAYA ROAD, SIDHARTH NAGAR,
MYSORE.
6. SRI. G.S. NANJUNDA SWAMY
FATHER S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
96/B, 8TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS,
SHANTHI ROAD, SIDHARTH NAGAR
MYSORE. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.D.ASWATHAPPA, AGA FOR R1,
Sri B.RUDRAGOWDA, ADV. FOR R3, R4,
Sri P.H.VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADV. FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
NOTICE DT. 21.07.2014 VIDE ANNX-G ISSUED BY THE R-4 AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in erecting mobile tower for telecommunication purposes. It has established a telecommunication tower on the building belonging to the 5th respondent situated at Mysore for providing telecom WP 39915-916/2014 3 infrastructure. The 6th respondent appears to have given a complaint to the Commissioner, Mysore Mahanagara Palike, alleging that the tower was installed without the permission of the 2nd respondent and that the signals emitted from the antenna fixed to the tower were causing health hazard. As per the petition averments, the 6th respondent also filed a complaint before the Lokayuktha against the 2nd respondent- Commissioner, Mysore Mahanagara Palike, alleging inaction in the matter.
2. It is urged by the petitioner that pursuant to such complaint given to the Lokayuktha, 2nd respondent has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as per Annexure-G calling upon him to produce certain documents and also threatening to remove the tower in case the documents were not furnished within 10 days. It is also urged by the petitioner that at the instance of the 2nd respondent, respondents 3 & 4 - Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company and the Assistant Executive Engineer, Central Sub-Division, Mysore, have taken action to disconnect electricity supply given to the petitioner even without providing an opportunity of being heard WP 39915-916/2014 4 and without following the provisions of law. The said communication is produced at Annexure-G.
3. Notice of petition having been served on the respondents, all the respondents except the 2nd respondent have entered appearance. The 2nd respondent has been duly served with hand summons on 02.09.2014. There is no representation for the 2nd respondent.
4. Petitioner is challenging the legality and correctness of Annexure-G - communication issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer - 4th respondent and Annexure-J - notice issued by the 2nd respondent - Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Mahanagara Palike, Gayathripuram, Mysore.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent files a memo dated 10.09.2014 stating that the 4th respondent has restored the power supply. The memo is taken on record.
6. It is thus clear that the challenge made to Annexure-G does not survive for consideration in view of restoration of electricity supply. However, as regards the challenge made to the notice - Annexure-J, it is unnecessary for this Court to go into the correctness of the same at this stage or with regard to WP 39915-916/2014 5 the legal contentions urged in this connection by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Annexure-J is only a notice. Petitioner has been called upon to produce certain documents. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Division Bench of this Court has already taken a view that the local body viz., the 2nd respondent - Mysore Mahanagara Palike cannot insist for compliance of the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1964.
7. Admittedly, petitioner has not filed any objections or reply to the notice dated 07.08.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent. If the petitioner intends to resist the action initiated by the 2nd respondent, it is open for him to appear before the 2nd respondent, file objections enclosing the judgment of this Court and if any adverse order is passed, then take steps to challenge the same in accordance with law. It is not appropriate at this stage to interfere with the notice issued by the 2nd respondent. Reserving such liberty, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK