Karnataka High Court
Hutchison Essar South Ltd vs Corporation Of The City Of Belgaum on 25 November, 2010
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H N Nagamohan Das
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 25"" DAY OF NovEME'ER<;SR'2~Q..:(}
B BF ORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE :H.Nf'-NA;G4}3l&{'IOHAN
W.P.N0.l9530/2005 (LB-TAX») C/W W;R.N¢.<.71e2'&;74.7g;g_§/2do9.V: *
W.P.Nos.7163 & 74379;/2069,'w.P.Nos.7164.,&fv74S5-s6/2009.
W.P.Nos.7165 & 7474-841/2009..W.P.NoS.'31g$8132/2009.
W.P.Nos.8133-3134./2009 &---w.R;No;-12368/2069{LB-R1«:s)
w.P.No.1-953$/gofis (LB.'-'"fiAXEj
BETWEEN: ' "
HUTCHISON ,E'S.SAR SOUTH' LTD.;g A
PRESTIGE 'E.LUE<C_H1R_' ' '
GROUND P'LOQR,"1BLO'C'KI', E
No.9, "HOSUR RQAD; C
BANGALORE '~,56QD29;..¢_
REPRESENTED BY ITS _
MANAGER":gLEGAL'*.
SHR1.'SANJ1T NAGARKATTI. ..PETITI_ONER
'M '(BR Srj: $zI:.g§;afA SHANKAR, SRCOUNSEL FOR
A _ " 4'./I{S._§}UR.UI§AJ' & ASSTS.)
T 'CORPORATION OF THE CITY
E OF EELGAUM
WBEIQGAUM.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. . RESPONDENT
(By Smt. HEMALEKHA, K.S. ADV.)
J\5H'
I .
S. ./
TI-IIS WRIT PETITION PILED U/A 226 & 227 OE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
RESOLUTION No.22? DT.30.08.2003 AT A_NNEXU'RE-._GgAND
w.P.Nos.7I6;&747g-73/g009 «
BETWEEN:
WIRELESS WTT INEO SERVICES L'i"D.,'v._ "
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ' "
ST" ELOOR, S.I.R.PRIMUS, _
No.1, INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, E' _ V'
7"?" BLOCK, KORAMANGALA',"" -.
BAN(3ALORE---560 095,')-_ __ .
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL vIIEA_DSC'-. "
SHRIM.S.GAUTHAM 'PETITIONER
(By Sri. VZJ4Ai$'AéI1SH,AI\ff£A:R_,:SR,COUI§E'SEL EOR
M/S G'URII-RA'}"& ,A'sj:3;.TS--.I_ " '
_I_. ;S'I'ATE OE KARNATAKA
.. "By._II'S_ CHIEF SECRETARY
URBAN' DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
'I M;'S,_BUiLD'ING, BANGALORE.
.l3IRF:CTOR
DIRECTORATE OE MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATION, PODIUM BLOCK,
A AMBEDKAR VIDBI, BANGALORE.
'CIIIEP OFFICER
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
LIN AGSUGUR,
GRAICI-IUR - 584 122.
»~.__§'~--
fl.
4. THE SECRETARY
GOKARNA VILLAGE PANCHAYATH
KUMTA.
5. THE CHIEF OFFICER
TOWN PANCHAYATH
BEELAGI. iv ';';RESp§)N;3.1:3NTTS":«
(By Sn I<.S.MALLIKARIUNAIA_E, OPEOR R--1v' '
R-3 SERVED " ._
Sri I-IEGDE, NEERALGI & PATIE, ADV-S.fEOR R-4
Sn D.S.HOSMATH3- ADv.,IEEORv--R45S.S) "-
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED ,U/A 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION % OF INI)1'A-.PRAYING 'DECLARE THAT
THE MUNICI.P.A'LI-.AUTHORI_TI.ES/.ESQCAL BODIES HAVE NO
AUTHORITYTQ111'£/1,/\1§E A;_FISC/XL 'DEMAND IN RESPECT OF
TELECOMM U_N,I'cATIOINfAA.__VTOWERS INSTALLED BY THE
PETITIONER AND E"Tc.., ._
E F F' 'w.P,I\fos.7*I.§3« 7.487-92_/_2009 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN': . F E'
I 'VI,AK1LSQU'«4'sRE
1 #56; ,ABv)5N'NERvG-HATTA ROAD
F' 560 029.
RE'PRES.EI~<siTED BY ITS LEGAL EEAD
SEISHRINATH. .PETITIONER
A (By Sr}: .\/IJAYA SHANKAR, SRCOUNSEL FOR
. _ (M/S OURURAJ & ASSTS.)
=-,__
JO
E. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MSBUILDING, BANGALORE.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL"-« __
ADMINISTRATION, PODIUM BLOCK;
AMBEDKAR VIDHI, _BANGALQRE."' I
3. CHIEF OFFICER
MUNICIPAL COI\/IMITTEE_ I I
KUMTA, NORTH _KAN'I$.?ADFAf3'»
4. CHIEF OFFICER H
MUNICIPAL 'I
ULLAL-A, D.AKSIgI_IN4A-.IKANI*JADA, I
5. MIINIICRIRAL C(3MMIS'sIO'NE'RRR
CITY MUNICIPAL C.Q'U.,NCiL
RAICHUR. ' - V' ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri KIISIA/1ALIIIKA.RI}UI§lAIAH, GP FOR R-I
; R. 2: TO 4'-AREISERVED
"<.S:;1i._OSMAHE'sH...A_.DV., FOR R-5)
I f _ WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED U/A 226 & 227 OF
._Cf)'_NS'Tl"f'.IJ'FlON OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
THE MUNICIPAL AUTHOR1TIEs/ LOCAL EODIES HAVE NO
AUTHORITY TO MAKE A FISCAL DEMAND IN RESPECT OF
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS INSTALLED BY THE
I ~RRE.TIT'IONER AND ETC.
I\___:§"*
W.P.N0s.7l64 & 7485-86/g009 (LB-RES) Q
BETWEEN:
VODAFONE ESSAR SOUTH LTD,' .
PREsTIGE BLUE CHIP
GROUND FLOOR, BLOCK I,
No.9, HOSUR ROAD, ' ~
BANGALORE560 029.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
HEAD -LEGAL , --
SHRI SANJIT NAGARKATTI.'._ V_..PETITIONER
(By Sri. VIIAYA.ASHANVKIAR.}sR.--CO,UN'sE,L'FOR
M/S GURURA5-.& AssTs'..~')
AND:
1. ST:'A_TE,'OF E
BY ITS PR1NICIPAL.,,sECRETARY
M.S.BU"lLD£NQ, BANGALORE.
- _ 2..'fiFH,FIv.DI,RECa1*OR .... .. -
_ 3 'DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL
"ADM1NI'STRATION, PODIUM BLOCK,
'-'_,1AMBE.DK.AR' VIDHI, BANGALORE.
3.""--MUNICI'PAL COMMISSIONER
CITY. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
~ : ,_BIwIADRAvATII1. ...RE-SPONDENTS
'.:(B3/sn I<;.s.IvIALLII<ARIIINAIAII, GP FOR R-I & 2
R~3 SERVED)
c-'""
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED U/A 226 &I227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLA'RE"'«.T'E{AT
THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES/' LOCAL BODIES. NO
AUTHORITY TO MAKE A FISCAL DEMAND RESFE'cTf*O,F'I~,
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS 1N'STAI.,.LE:)'-.T3«y_ THE,
FETITIONER AND ETC. ._ H _
W.P.Nos.716S & 7474-8'4/200_9,rIfivE;I{E;s) T
B ETWEEN:
I. RELIANCE COMMU1\IICATI"ION,_,LII\}HTED
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT I:IO.I?§9/2,'=--f'« 1
"R" COM HOUSE, 4"' FLOOR', ,
HESSARGHATTA CROSS, 87*? ML'. 'I '
TUMKUREEIAD, PEENYA, 'j_
BANGAI.OREf:g_.56@ :05'/:.._ ., 3
REFR'ESENTE'T3; BY"IT'S 'LEGAL HEAD
MT. GOU'T'AM.,B'QSE.._ _ --
2. RELIANCE INFRATELLIMITED
HAVING ITS OFF1r:E AT No.39/2,
COM HOUSE, 4" FLOOR,
"IIESSAROHATTIAI CROSS, ST" MILE,
~. I, *TU'IvII<UI:._ROAD, PEENYA,
"BAN_GA'LOT:E -- 560 057.
._ "'L'.__REPR'ESEQN'i'ED BY ITS LEGAL READ
A Mr. VGOLITVAM BOSE FETITIONERS
(By SfII.AI/IJAYA SHANKAR, SRCOUNSEL FOR
I A M/S OIIRURAI & ASSTS.)
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
M.S.BUILDING-, BANGALORE.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL. I
ADMINISTRATION, PODIUM BLOCK," 3
AMBEDKAR VIDHI, BANG.ALORE_..
3. THE SECRETARY
KOLURU VILLAGE_PANCH--AY'ATH._
BELLARY TALUK', EELLARY, --«
4. THE COMMISSIONER I
CITY MUNICIPAL C'OUN{:IL' Z
BHADRA7_§7A'§Fi1I
5. THE 2- A 2 A
CITY"M.II'IxIICIR§AI, C--OENCIE~--
TI;IMRUR;v RESPONDENTS
(By S;-I 'K=..S4.'MAILLIKARIU-NATAH, GP FOR R-I & 2
R-3 &'4. ARE SERVED
" _; M/S S. RAILI '& ASSTS. ADVS.,FOR R-5 )
WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED U/A 226 & 227 OF
"CON.ST1_TUTI2OI~; OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT
' ._T'I~.IE i\/EUlsII_C'1PAL AUTHORITIES! LOCAL BODIES HAVE NO
AIITHQRIIEKTO MAKE A FISCAL DEMAND IN RESPECT OF
TELEC'-ONIMUNICATION TOWERS INSTALLED BY THE
PETITIONER AND ETC.
'\.J'*
W.P.N0S.8124-8132/2009 {LB-RES;
BETWEEN:
M/S.BI~1ARTI AIRTEL LIMITED
No.55, DIVYASHREE TOWERS
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
OPPOSITE JAYADEVA HOSPITAL
BANGALORE--56O 029
REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD_LE§3'A_
PRASHANTHN
(BY SR1 VIJAYASHANKAVR; SR-',VIAD7\.7,"'FQRV" ' " ~ . I
M/S.G-URURAJ&ASSTS.')V __RETITIONER
AND: V' V V' V
I. STATE:OE"KAi§I$1;r\TI\_I:A"
BY ITS CH£EF.SECRETAR'1Cf. ' I
URBAN I D,Ev'ET;'OEMENT_'DE1>ARTIyI_EI~IT
M.S.BUILDBIO,_V '
BANGALORE. ' ., '
2. THE DIRECTOR . V' _
DIRECTORATE OE',Mu<N1C1PAL ADMINISTRATION
PODIUM BLOCK '
AMBEQKAR VIDVHI-- «««««
'V V' «B_ANG2*gI.ORE.,
' V 3; MUV.I\fEC:Rb;L-'COMMISSIONER
CITY MUIECIPAL COUNCIL
B'E«i,ADRAVATHI'.
V R 4. TEE 'COMMISSIONER
V. MAQHANAGARA RALIKE
' VDAVANAGERE
THE SECRETARY
VILLAGE PANCHAYATH
SHERAGUPL DHARWAD.
.2"'-3*"
C7
6. CHIEF OFFICER
MUNICIPAL, COMMITTEE
PAVAGADA
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
7. CHIEF OFFICER
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE
SANDOOR
8. THE PRESIDENT
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT
NEGHU, SHIRSI
NORTH KANNADA
9. TIIESECRETARY , V'
BAILU VRADHIGERI VILLAGE I>AN_C.HAYAT"=
HOSPETETA_LUIi:,;V,.,.,.'
1 'T 3 " RESPONDENTS
(BY SR1. I<_;,S:MALEII<VARI'I;NAIAII, OREOR R1
R2, 5,6, 7,"&.,S3SERi'y'ED _
SR1' 'D,,C.IAOAD1SE,, 'A.Dv.._EOR--R_3
SRI B.K..MAN'JUNA"I*H,"ADV,., EOR R4)
_ THESE WRIT I»ETITIONS ARE FILED U/A 2.26 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION, OF INDIA PRAYINO TO DECLARE THAT
I " TEE I~,gIIINICII3AI;'IAUTHORITIESI LOCAL EODIES HAVE NO
, 'A,EL'TIIORIT'Y._TO MAKE A FISCAL DEMAND IN RESPECT OF
"'TELE.CQ1V£_1\k1.EJNICATION TOWERS INSTALLED BY THE
~.P'EfIiITIOI:IER,,'AND ETC.
W.P.N0s.8133-8134/2009 (LB-RES)
AIRCEI. LIMITED
__?N'O\/EL TEAM BUILDING
I # 10, 2"" FLOOR, I00 FEET ROAD,
RING ROAD, B.T.M. I" STAGE,
Ix?"
1.../'
$0
BANGALORE «M 560 068.
REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE B'US1NESS
HEAD Mr. VINAY CHANDHOK. ..PETiTiONER
(By Sri. VIJAYA SHANKAR, SRCOUNSEL FOR
M/S GURURA} & ASSTS.)
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETART . _
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEP'ARTMEN"f-V_ '
M.S.BUILDiNG, BANGALOREV' _
2. THEDIRECTOR _
DIRECTORATE OF MUNTCTRAL .
ADMINTSTRATION, VpODA:UM13LOcR,~»~ ~
AM BEDKAR TWDHQ; BANGALORE."
3. THE S_E.CRETAR;Y I
V1L!,Af_}E, RANCHTAYATR
GOPALA, TARIKERETALUK
CHIKKMAGAL--UR--._DiSTRICT.
" _ 4;-if i'THE.:sEcRETA'R--"*:« *
V VI_LLACfE,PANC_HAYATH
" _ "RAL.1N»G'A=NAHALL1NAGAMANGALA
._jTALU_i<:, MANDYA DESTRICT. ...REsPONDENTs
(Ry snfR.s;'MALL1KAR3'UNA:AH, GP FOR R-1
'R--2i& 4 ARE SERVED
A 'A sriAsHOI<_N.NAYAR, ADV., FOR R-3)
THESE WRiT PET'ITiONS ARE FILED U/A 226 & 227 OF
_fCONsT1TUT1ON OF INDEA PRAYENG TO DECLARE THAT
THE MUNICEPAL AUTHORITIESI LOCAL BODiES HAVE NO
AUTHORITY TO MAKE A FISCAL DEMAND IN RESPECT OF
aw
TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS INSTALLED BY THE
PETITIONER AND ETC.
W.P.12368/;009(LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
XCEL TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED H
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER TIIER.
COMPANY ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS} "
REGISTERED OFFICE AT sUITE_I7I_ A
17"' PLOOR, ATLANTA BUILDING
209,NAR1MAN POINT, v
MUMEAI _ 400 021 V_ " _
AND HAVING ITS REGIONALI_O'P*IfICEI"I ' I
AT NO.3C-432, IST STAGE,"!1.T"" BLL{)C.'K, " I _
HBR LAYOUT? _BANGALORE-T560943 I "
REPREsENTED'EV ITS. SC)'U"'1"H"ERN--."* A
REGIONAL"HE__AD.,.'1,T'.CQL.AN.i'L-SOOD
AGED' 'ABOUT ST AZRS
A A ..PET1TIONER
(BY COL.3HUPIND_ER.sIIIJ,GII, ADV.)
AND; A A S A
I If ':FHE.:COMMI:SS"I'GE<IER
1' 'C_IT"{_MLjN1C.IPAL COUNCIL
'"CHAMARAJANAGAR--57 I 3 I 3
'2.._1"STA.TEC:"(;.II5 KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
URB"AVN'3~DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
" 'V'I.KASA SOUDHA
* VEANGALOREASEG 001.
(BY M/s. NAGARAIAPPA & AssTs. FOR RI
..RESPONDENTS
SR1 KSMALLIKARJUNAIAH, HCGP FOR R2)
r..___('\.
(7.
12363-@099 '9
7163/2009 &
7487-92/2009
7164/2009 &
7485-7486/2009
7165/2009 &
7474-84/2009
8124-8132/2009: .
,."s133-s1-3472009 ,
NIL
El
E2
E3
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
E19' 1..
El
NEL
18.2.2009
I8.2.2009
18.2.2009
26.'2..2009_9 ;.
04.232009 "
_18.2.20r_)9'~
--..,,1"8._,2.2009 V
13.2.2009
,,~--1~3..*2.2009
._ 1,8..2.2oo9~-2.,
.
V .1 8...2.2'0~09' .18..2'.--2009 ' _1's..2'.'20C9~' _ 'l__8:2.2009 9 '21"1'3;2:.2009 91822009 25.2.2009 29.01.2009 16.3.2009 04.03.2009 22.01.2009.
1 ,23%,'@3'9.t_ 5 , j "-4,3-1.,,'852.'- ._ 1 30,45 3/-
1,532,024/--
1,130,630/«~ I ,29,268/~ l.,22,508/-
1,30,154/«~ 2,3 '1 ,9§1/--
1,28,'748/--
50,000- 85,980/-
32,000/-
50,000/-
7,500/-
25,000/--
50,000/~ * -.,25.0Q0/--, j = .. 25,008/.g . 2,'39,244/'--= ""._'89,~826/« 2';'««._Peti.£i(;néfs contend that {hey have obtained license from the Dajiarllnent Teiecommtlnicaiions, Ministry of Communications, GQVe,1}h'1'1aehl of India under the lndian Telegraphic Act to provide (,/7'"'"NN infrastructure support and assistance to teiecom service providers. terms of the license, petitioners are establishing {ClBCOFFIITIUfliCa[iOHi~'fieiWQlfi(V.:'QITll_i.p as a part of it, they are erecting and instaiiing base''tran--sfreceiyer ' stations/telecommunication towers aii over the State of':K'arna--:.akaMand' within the limits of various local bodies. Petitioners erecting; and instaiiing the towers on private aufterll necessary permission by way of lease or Since the local bodies are creating in the matter of erecting towers by certificate, iieense, permission etc, of Karnataka for a general direction to.' Reacting to the request of the petitioners and Karnataka issued a Circular on 2.352005 perrriitiiing iltheinylito instaii and erect the towers subject to the foiiowing .c011d_itio11-S \ .,,.
(i) ensure safety of the structure and upon which the toweryis erected and also the stability of the tower itself Tliieponipanies shall be bound by any levy imposed by the local J .
V (iiill companies shall be responsible for the safety of general public. ' fl
(iv) The companies shall abide by all the applicable Rules".oand Regulations.
3. Despite this general Circular dated Government of Karnataka, the local bodies/respondyepntjs are':issui1ig.d.eniand' notices as stated above to pay license fee/'tax/charges/Cessyetc; by this action of the respondents and localllboldies_,u aresbefore this court. I I R l
4. Sri Vgjayshanltar, the petitioners contend that under the Act licenses are issued in l'avo_tir collecting necessary license fee. Therefore, the to pay any other fee or license charges toypgjthle local bodies/1'es__3ondents under the provisions the three
-- KMQC Act and Panchayathraj Act. Under the provisiions Acts, respondent ~ local bodies can only levy property in.V.re'spect of land and éuildings and as such they are not yentitliedrt to collect any fee/tax or cess from the petitioners for erecting tel.econ1rniunicatio1i towers. The demand of respondent local bodies is i therefore contrary to the provisions of the Acts referred to above. It is '-"-._..
'xi i7 16 ! contended that the power to levy tax under the provisions of the above three Acts is traceable only to Article 246 of the Constitution of India' entry 49 of Li.st--ll of VII schedule which deals with . buildings. The said entry under Article 24v.6~do._notli Legislature to impose tax on contended that the impugned deinandintitices Reliance is placed on the followmg decisvior.s§g_"-- _ iii'
1) 2010(2) ..C::,ij:ai'at Law I§e_porter'~:l'?3O "\rt~.1"';51(2) lnduspffowetesi Ltd, Vsf i.State_4_ofi.G'uja1'at"& another
ii) Nit ism sc¥;2'e3s»_f-
':VAhmeda'|3adaUrban«Development Authority Vs. Sharadkurnar lf'a.yanti'i'c!irr;.ar Pasawalla and others. 'Per conltra,_Vlle.arneci counsel for the respondent local bodies c'ontend«.that_the telecornrnunieation towers erected and installed by the petitione1's,.are v.ii'thing;.the ambit of the word 'Building' as defined under the provisions of" three Acts. Therefore, the respondent -- local bodies are competeiitpp to levy tax on the telecommunication towers erected and _'i'nis'tall.f:dl within the limits of the local bodies. Respondents justify the levy V A oftax under the impugned demand notices. fl
6. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.
7. Article 265 of Constitution of India specifies thatino hick it levied or collected except by authority of law? Legislature of a State to enact law authorising the tpanchaya.tl1svi'to levy"and' collect taxes, duties, tolls and fees. So Article'24t3;X enipowers the State Legislature to enact the lawas-:th(:--?rising'th.eeMunicipalities to levy and collect taxes, duties, tolls and '-,T'nt.e ;Go'vevrnrnfent" of Karnataka had enacted the Munie._i:palii7tie_§; Act, l9'76 and the Panchayathraj Act, l993.«.._ Under these. three Acts necessary provisions are made for levy oftaxes, l'ees';"cess"'etc.' Provisions are also made for issue of licenses. V, rp1*0visi"on.stunder these three Acts do not specify authorising the local under these three enactments to levy and collect the annual perinissirons' andflnstallation charges in respect of mobile tele~ t 'V'comrntntipcatiovn.towers. Further the provision under these three Acts do not ~ «specify thatvthe cellular companies are required to obtain licenses and «pe"r:nissio'n_s for providing telecorn service. In the absence of any such
-..a:uth0r%ity under these three enactments, the local bodies are barred from a"*"'"
levying and collecting any fee or installation charges on petitioners and other cellular companies for providing telecom service.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner.s_l_'arVe',i_ii'egister'ed_7.. infrastructure provider category--I. with the G_overntneiit..gofl_l'ndia--,.. of Coirirnunications and IT, Department of TelecomirztiiiicationsZ}underg Section 4 of the Indian Telegraphic Act. G_overn'me_nt'of India has also issued registration certificates nr.d.e'r the Indian'?Ifele'graphic Act, i885 to the petitioners to operate (3.6llUl.ZlI'vgiTlOi_):iiC ' telepho'1i,el in Karnataka Telecorn Circle servilce. is onl'the..sltrength of thecertificates issued under the Tele.graphic°'A.ct;y theifiijpetiltiotners are"'*erecting the mobile towers in different parts of theCountryl'inctl_.uding the State of Karnataka for providingtcellular"~rnobile]_ telephone services. Therefore, the petitioners fnecd not...requ-ire to obtain*ar1'y license or permission from the respondent local :V1QQuCii€$l'l'».E)OE' l"gro*,{idi.ng and operating telegraph services. Even it otherwise, the. proyisions under these three enactments though provide for » ..fjv»'v"O__l3t'a.ining license or permission in respect of the areas specified in the "schagduleflnentioned therein, they do not provide to obtain license or ':"p.erinilssion for providing and operating telegraph service. Therefore, the petitioners who have already obtained the registration certificates under the \ v-...__f-
l9 Telegraphic Act need not require to obtain any license or perniissiohfrom the respondent» local bodies for providing and operating telegraph' V
9. Section 94 of the Municipalities Act proyidersyfor of tax A on building or vacant land or both situatedwit'hin}the» lkrlunicipalpiareai; Section 2(3) of the Municipalities Act defines the sword as "Building" includes a by()1.zthho1rseji stable, latrine, urinal, shed, h;t_;';"t~,t.,,-a[,';i vieirahdayhgflxecl ipAlaVtf()rn2, plinth, doorstep, staircase ();tier*'_» structure, whether of or any other material ivI1at,t'c>e1ier,_--bu:t a"o_es r1()t_'im;f{arle a"15ortai)le shelter. Section----l--~8.l__ t'oa_l92*o_f,the_lV£uiiicipalities Act deals with the power of Munieipalityto regulate pconsitruction 'of buildings. l0._ . _ So alsop_Seeti,onA'l._i)3*~*of the KMC Act specifies the levy of tax 1-ion"o.i.1ildiin;gs ior vacant lhnd's"or both situated within the city. Section 2(1- ofbthe defines the word 'Building' as under:
' uilditz he! an' e s. --
y S' house, (,)lH'--h()ltS€, stable, prz'v3,=, shed, hut, wall, , ire}",<ar1dc:I1., fixer! platform, plinth, doorstep and any other such .s'trueIure, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mad, ;i_1e;t_a"[ or any other material whatsoever.
(underline is mine} Further Section 295 to 321 of the KMC Act deals with the power to regulate construction of buildings.
1}. Similarly, Section I99 of the :l%Z'a"rr1a.t.akai_: Act it specifies levy of tax upon the buildingsand of"
defines the word 'Building' as under:
r«Bm';dl-Hg» i,.1C[m-mg. as 5;"mh(;iise,ii"'.:2itt--l2ciese'; suzble, shop, stable, warehouse,ii' iv'(1i'k{s!1()Vpi,::v slzecl, km' or other enclosure i'whetI1e:"" Vc2.i1_'=r,1_ clwelling or otherwise .c:*i()tii;r)i:~.wizcI wall, fencing, verandah, j2lcztfii'r*;:1,. pfir1tli"r,--ir;r)r;s'£ep CliI'I»!_.'1' the like; Sectiori-65 «speci.fie:iCthe' vpoW.er..to regulate the erection of buildings. Section 66. _specifiesgVithat';.no'=_person shall without permission of Gram I-iPar'1ehaya.tiiinstallwin any 'premises any machinery or manufacturing plant, driwi' by V any"powei=si.et'c.. .
j 12. reiidingoi' the provisions in the Municipalities Act and the KMC iAicots.speci.fies the word 'Building' includes a structure made out of metal or __other"§mate1'ial whatsoever. Further Section 66 of the Panchayathraj Act V _ iispeci1'ies that no person shall install the machinery on any premises without ,//N"
21
permission of the Gram Panchayath. Petitioners in order to provide cellular mobile telephone services are constructing metal towers. The _ereictioii. of these metal towers cornprises installation of commun.ication"--[t'ower--s; installation of shelter and a diesel generatorsetattached'Vtovijt; liivariablyilii these transmission towers are erected over'*residenitiali,'rc'ornr1':ereiial.Hand industrial buildings, vacant lands etc.--.._Thereforie,,_they evreetijonwiofi these' communication towers falls within thQ'C'i'€l;lilil.tli(J¥l of tlievword 'Building' specified under the provisions the, .i¥'tl'iree:' referred to above. Whenever a person e_re-its a_rnetfal tower within_the limits of the City, Town or l\/i.unicipality=i'l Grain _are required to secure permission/licensed local body. On completion of erection of toweié, local body is entitled to levy tax on it. v4'Therei'orB;i':ithe>.petitioiie.rs: are erecting towers within the limits of the .ireq.iiired to obtain perrnission/license and liable to pay taxes*!:o' the cont:'e--rned 'local. body. A 13. ii company by name M/s. Reliance lnfratel Limited A the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short "BBMP') "life-r,Vp.eriniss_ion to establish a Base Transceiver Stations comprising erecting metres communication tower, installation of a shelter and a diesel '\ aw IN) IQ generator set at No.63 and 64. 1 Main, Upkar Layout, Whi--t'efgield, Bangalore--66. The residents of Upkar Layout complained opposing the erection of mobile tower in that area on thelggrouindiithat i' would cause serious health hazard and rad.iatiion poillution in the 'r_es{id'entia'i. area. Consequently the BBMP referred thel'-matter to,.ICen'tral 'Power', Research Institute for furnishing their ()plfii_(l)iiIi on he'alth"'t:aZarlG_ aspects of erecting a communication the reportiroin CPRI, the BBMP issued an endorsementlnot._toli_pr-fiigceediviiwiiltitthe installation and commissioning of 'endtirsement issued by the BBMP, iappiroached this court in w.P.No.229:;_1/2Q09.V'l'i'i:yiri'h«g tlitirpentiency of w.P.2293 1./2009 the BBMP secured a report from"i--thel'india.nl'lnstitute of Science specifying the guidelines} in the matter of erecting a communication tower so as to limit the exp~o,sut'e_Vof.electro magnetic fields radiated from mobile base stations. TheiBBl\_/IP "tth5_threri.l'i5i-tiught to the notice of the Court in the said writ petition the (fiioiverrirnent Order tiateti;20.2.i999, 12.11.2003 and 29.5.2002 i'speci.i'ying the guidelines in the matter of erecting communication towers and the substance of these Government orders is as under:
b.
(1.
That they .S'llOl.£l(l obtain approval of Air Traff't'c' Controller, Airport A.LtIl1()1"lI_\,-' of India, for exemption of Roof I:}f?':}~3.t17l.?._I16l from restriction, in case such exemption is r'eq_1t'iir.'ecl. K 5' That they should inform the local ..a4t.ttltorit}?l "c'rolteeelrtteel 1';-e. Commissioner, Mtmicipalities,s Urbaij, _D'Uvelo"pnietit Department, etc. along w.._i_ti'2.. _ the heces.sary arta'U consent letter of the . build in-3g"().t»izrter'~b_e fo re ii'nstall(t:'tion. That they are .s'olelly.e_'resprfhsibie may damage to the lmilelittg. * Thai tl'ie3?"-- sl'i'oit't_dbtttk[e. _.s*pe__ei€tl";trecau.tions for fire safety and Ivligl_1:ettit1g,Veta, ll Grmttitzg 'per"rnltss'i()*.=1_V to the Company to install electric l 'V e*t]Ltiph'zent;s;for' telecom operation, the Department of Urban _fil:)i.eaielopthet-tt, Mimicipttl Corporation shall ensure that the vi sltttl l obtain clearances from the following agencies:
" No objection certificate from Electrical Inspectorate Vii) No objection certificate from Directorate of Fire
1.
Services
iii) N0 0I2_jecn'0n cerrzficcire from owners as.s(icric1fEt2ri..s' of building.
14. In wp No.'2293l/2009 M/s.__.Reliance'it'liifratell'-ileiniited"= submitted that they will comply with the requii'.eme_ntr~specifiéidrin "~!fCf;i,.l_I'i submitted by the "Indian Institute lofiscience and.:' Government Orders dated 2.0.2.1999---,-- V1712.' i..1_.20or« -.and_ii 29.5.2002. Recording the undertaking gzivenlby _M./ls._ Limited, the said W.P.2293i/2009 came .a;oDbe_ disgpiosledet'. ii I it i E l5. The installation of'lc:omrn'unication tower either on vacant land or on the rotéi ioii.bu'ildi11gi"c.Qrn..prises installation of communication tower, installatienof shelte'1'.an_d.filielsel generator set attached to it. This activity o.i_§:eree.ting a"co_1_ninuni'::ation tower involves the safety of building, safety' pe_voni1;;.jresi_ivding in the said building and in the neighborhood. Further"i--t_inv'oives_ the"healtli of residents in the locality due to emission of radiationi'"'fro"in such towers. Therefore, the erection of mobile towers ».:i'ne'eessa1'--il.y involves the regulation by local body similar to the regulation "of erectlion of a building. The local bodies are having an obligation under "themprtivisions of three enactments referred t.o above to regulate the J. erection, installation and cominissioning oi' the mobile towers. As such. the petitioners are required to obtain permission/license for ereetion:'o-!';~th'eh. mobile towers.
16. The license obtained by the petitiioneifisi lithe Indian Telegraphic Act is only in rnobilewi' telephone services. The said license Telegraphic Act is not for the purpose of erecting a held, erecting of mobile tower comes" A word 'Building'.
Whenever a buildizig the local body then the same requires to be public safety and health. Therefore, lieense: _.the petitioners under the Indian Telegraphic_Act is"entirel_y'q--,di_tfereriit from the permission or license to be obtained"ifron1._*-stAhei»r.local ibodies' for erecting mobile towers. The license obtained.ui'ide:r'«theilndian Telegraphic Act serves different purpose and the Z"""license/permission" tube obtained under the local bodies serves a different " '?}'vpu_rp<)se. "TH_hiere.fore, the petitioners are required to obtain the p~ern1.issi.,onl'license from the respondent/local bodies for the purpose of A the mobile towers.
d"
17. Once the petitioners erect a mobile tower within the limits of respondent - local bodies by obtaining permission from themji under the definition of the word 'Building'. If a building islerected"
the limits of the respondent » local bodies then they are?.em.po_we1_ed tofllevyp and collect taxes per the provisions of the'ienaetment§;V"~._:tnd. the"
Therefore, the petitioners who have erectedpliirnobile _la.=rel'libablle to payll taxes to the respondent ~--loca:l'*~i.bt)diesllas-vipers'-._the provisions of the enactments and the Rules.
18. It is brought.__to:.m'y no.tice" that Bruhatl Bangalore Mahanagara Palike arnendteidiitltel. l?Z:t1lesl:i§elati'i'tg to assessment of buildings for the period 2008-09 to 20304 provision is made to levy taxes on mobile towers at Rs.132,000/--i'per«annum per tower. It is not brought to my fnotiee ;_stuc'n_ arnentlr--n--en't to the taxation Rules in respect of Act and Panchayat Raj Act. The respondent M 2 *.local bodies t_1nde.i_ 'these three enactments are entitled to amend their ~ «i'.j'jV»-'taxation Rules lproviding levy of taxes on mobile towers. Till the relevant '*Rulesrnbrel'}amended by the respondent authorities in accordance with law, ll "'--therespondent authorities are at liberty to adopt the Rules framed by Bruhat ii"--Bangalore Mahanagara Palike in the matter of levying taxes on mobile .r-.._ yd"
t_./l towers. The impugned notices issued by the respondents are not btasepd on any Rules. These demand notices based on resolutions the respondent local bodies are arbitrary, unguided and not Rules and as such they are liable to be quashed; is the respondent W local bodies, under the three enactments, to ,l'eyy"and 'col'ivect*.. taxes in accordance with law. By quashingthe impulgned'notic.es there will be a void situation in the matter' thellpetitioners who have already erected and operating in the limits of respondent -- local necessary to balance the interest of 'thepetiltioners are liable to pay tax of Rs.l2,O0(l;l5 tillappropriate Rules are framed for levying taxes on~_hell.payrnent of Rs.l2,000/-- per mobile tower per._§annri.1n. is subject to the framing of Rules by the respondent -- local bodies and.the's.arne is adjustable. l9~.._ V_§;;ea1ined counsel. for the petitioners relying on a judgment of it :v".4Gui.aratVtHig.h'iCourt in Indus Towers Limited Vs. State of Gujarat reported 'l'{£.'(':l'tl'};;cl'I'i}'E"'l.4EiW Reporter Vol. 5E(2) 1730 contend that it is not permissible ..fo1a-~vtlie respondent W authorities to levy and collect permission fees and installation charges in respect of mobile telecommunication towers. In «J lndus Towers Limited's Case the Government resolution dated 1.l..'l2--.2008 issued by the Government of Gujarat and Urban Housing Dep«':1_r'Lrrienut'ge~and. the demand notices issued pursuant thereto providing for.levy_Vand_ireeovery_ it < of annual pernnssion fees and telecommunication towers was ehallenged.ii'lnri'the impugned notice specifies that the passed resolution demanding perniissionfee I. am in agreement with the law laid dowAn..i.n:i. Case. On this ground also the impu gneci:1ir:'n'oEiQe:'*21re _1i"able:_4to_Vb'e'quashed.
20. For the re2rsé5o_i1s state:14a'o.ov'e, theliollowing order:
1) V'V:1?l:["pf3[llZlG11$ allowed.
ii) 'ii 'The impugned orders/demand notices as under are hereby Annexures Dated Amount 19530/..2'0'o-5 G F 08.07.2005 2 ,40,000/-
L * 710.02/:t)09 & * ss747j2-73/2009 NIL NIL NIL 7163/2009 & 7'487--92/ 2009 7164/2009 & 7485-7486/2009 7165/2009 & 7474--84/ 2009 8124-8 1 132,/2009 NIL 29 NIL ~.»18_._2.20_09 " * 13-2'-2009 9 202.2009 _ " ' 04.2.2009' Le 18.2;'200'9 ~ 1-s3%.2.2009«...
~4..V1.s.=2.A2009 18.2.2009 . ''i~.8.2~.{2.OG9 18.2.2009 13.2-.2009 0 _:8.2.2009 18.2.2009 18.2.2009 18.2.2009 18.2.2009 25.2.2009 29.01.2009 16.3.2009 3.1 _ = .e1%4;3V%:1T1,$«52/.--.._ 25,000/.-
"1 25,000.7- 2,39,244/--
89,826/--
1,30,-453/--
l.,32,024/--
l,30,630/-
l,29,268/--
1,22,508/--
1,30, 154/-
231,981/--
l,28,748/--
50,000- 85,980/--
32,000/--
50,000/--
7,500/-
0. El 1.1243168/200§i:§--.V. A B2 04.03.2009 25 ,000/--
22.01.2009 50,000/--
iii) 1' T1116 petiiioners are required to obtain license from the respondent local bodies under the relevant enactments for erecting mobile towers; .
$¥'$'°'-A
5..
30
iv) If the petitioners have all ready erected mobile towersfthen they have to seek regularisation from the responden:t"i'or_:'a}._hoIdi_esi in that event the respondent local. bodies have..to_:'eons.ider the in accordance with law keepirig in..rn'1jnd'--_the_'public~,safety' and--._ 4] health.
V) The respondent local bodies at the Taxation Rules providing or they may adopt the 'Bangalore Mahanagara
vi) vdpetditioners are iiable to pay a sum ._ annuiii per mobile tower as tax to the and the same is subject to amendment of 'V taxation.' respondent local bodies and the same is a 1" vvdC)ir-§,ei'ed=.accordingly.
sar-
Judge A 'L.R_$i'DKB