Gujarat High Court
Indus Towers Limited vs Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & 3 on 6 July, 2015
Author: C.L. Soni
Bench: C.L. Soni
C/SCA/2701/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2701 of 2015
=============================================
INDUS TOWERS LIMITED....Petitioner(s)
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 3....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MS VIDHI J BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DEEP D VYAS, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 4
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI
Date : 06/07/2015
ORAL ORDER
[1] By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : "21.(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned oral order / directions dated 23.08.2014 issued by the respondent Corporation as being contrary to the principles of natural justice, arbitrary, beyond the authority and power of the respondent Corporation and thus ultra vires the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and General Development Control Regulations and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to declare the impugned oral order / directions dated 23.08.2014 issued by the respondent Corporation as contrary to the principles of natural justice, arbitrary, beyond the authority and power of the respondent Corporation and thus ultra vires the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and General Development Control Regulations and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India.
Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/2701/2015 ORDER(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Corporation to lift the ban imposed on the work of installation of the subject monopole tower and allow the petitioner to proceed with the installation to the tower unhampered;
(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass cease and desist order restraining the respondent Corporation from hampering the installation and thereafter functioning and operation of the monopole tower of the petitioner in any manner;
(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent police authorities to provide police protection to the petitioner on payment for helping it to peacefully install the monopole tower on the said site;
(F) Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to allow the petitioner to proceed with the installation of the subject mobile tower;
(G) Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent police authorities to provide police protection to the petitioner on payment for helping them to peacefully install the monopole tower on the said site; and (H) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other and / or further order, as deemed fit, in the interest of justice."
[2] The case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has been permitted to install monopole tower on the premises of the respondent - Corporation for providing mobile telecommunication services to its customers with telecommunications technology of 2G and 3G, the petitioner has been orally ordered on 23.08.2014 on behalf of the respondent - Corporation not to go ahead with the work of installation of subject - monopole tower.
[3] It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/2701/2015 ORDER permission granted to the petitioner on various terms, the petitioner has started installation work by spending different amounts, however, for no good reason and just on opposition of local residents, oral order dated 23.08.2014 was issued to the petitioner with the result that the petitioner though is entitled under the written permission of the respondent - Corporation to install tower is being deprived of its legitimate right to complete the work of installation and to provide telecommunication services to its customers.
[4] Mr. Deep Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the Corporation states that neither the Corporation nor any of its authorities have either passed oral order as alleged in the petition or passed any order in writing so as to prevent the petitioner from carrying out work of installation of monopole tower. Mr. Vyas further points out from the record of the Corporation that initially action was contemplated to cancel the permission, but no final order as alleged was ever passed canceling the permission. Mr. Vyas further states that if the Corporation is to take such action, the same would be taken only in accordance with law.
[5] The Court finds that in view of the statement made by Mr. Vyas on behalf of the Corporation the grievance voiced in this petition should not survive. Once it is stated on behalf of the Corporation that there is no oral order or written order made by any of the authorities of the Corporation, it is always open to the petitioner to go ahead with the work of installation of monopole tower. Therefore, no direction as sought for is required to be issued in the present petition at this stage.
[6] At this stage, Ms. Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/2701/2015 ORDER submitted that the petitioner was already granted police protection to enable the petitioner to complete the work of installation of tower, however, just on account of oral order issued to the petitioner, such police protection was withdrawn. Ms. Bhatt submitted that in the present petition, the petitioner has also prayed to direct the concerned authorities to provide for protection. The Court finds that now since the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Corporation has made above referred statement by virtue of which the petitioner can go ahead with the work of installation of monopole tower, it is always open to the petitioner to ask for police protection, if the petitioner so finds necessary.
[7] In view of above, the petition is disposed of at this stage leaving it open to the petitioner to take appropriate legal remedy, as and when the cause for the petitioner so arises.
(C.L.SONI, J.) satish Page 4 of 4