Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The petitioners have also challenged the resolution passed by the Corporation at Exhibit-L to the writ petition. However, Mr. Dixit, learned senior counsel did not press this prayer since the petitioners have an alternate remedy to challenge the said resolution.

5. Mr. Dixit, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners addressed the Court only on the legality of the impugned notice. He contended that the petitioners had applied for sanction of the plans and/ or for permission to erect the mobile WRIT PETITION NO.: 48 OF 2011 GTL Infrastructure Ltd. V/s The Dhule Municipal Corporation and others tower as contemplated by section 44 of the MRTP Act and since the Corporation did not communicate its decision, either granting or refusing permission within 60 days, the petitioners proceeded to develop/ construct the mobile tower under the deeming provision contemplated by subsection (5) of section 45 of the MRTP Act and, therefore, the impugned notice cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be set aside. In support of this contention, he invited our attention to sections 44 and 45 of the MRTP Act. Then, Mr. Dixit submitted that the notice under section 260 and 478 of the BPMC Act is illegal also on the ground that the petitioners had applied for permission to construct the mobile tower and, therefore, the Corporation was not justified in issuing the notice under section 260 and 478. In other words, he submitted that in the present case the petitioners had applied for permission and in view thereof the impugned notice asking the petitioners to demolish and/ or remove the mobile tower within 30 days was illegal. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in "Pune WRIT PETITION NO.: 48 OF 2011 GTL Infrastructure Ltd. V/s The Dhule Municipal Corporation and others Municipal Corporation, Pune V/s Nanasaheb Nagoji Bhosale" AIR 1995 Bombay 164.

2. We are required to erect mobile towers on rooftop of buildings and ground base tower, after entering into a proper agreement with the owners.
3. We are required to erect mobile towers on the roof top of the buildings & ground based tower after entering into a proper agreement with owners. We have entered into a License Agreement with Kashinath Babulal Chaudhari, the owner of the property Plot No. - 3/A, P. No. 200/4, Survey NO.546, 80 feet Road, Dhule Tal. & Dist. Dhule. Mentioned here in above for erection of mobile tower.

Date ...................... ..........."

10. From bare perusal of the prescribed form it is clear that it has to be submitted on Rs.0.20 Stamp and in the form of notice making the intent clear WRIT PETITION NO.: 48 OF 2011 GTL Infrastructure Ltd. V/s The Dhule Municipal Corporation and others to carry out development. It further provides that the application should be accompanied by nine documents, mentioned in the prescribed form. Thus, if the application is in the prescribed form and submitted along with all the relevant/ necessary documents, then alone, as observed earlier, one can claim benefit of the deeming provision. If the prescribed form is compared with the application dated 9th August, 2010, submitted by the Petitioner, it is clear that the application was not in the prescribed form. Therefor, it was not open to the petitioner to proceed with the construction of mobile tower treating the inaction/ silence of the Corporation, insofar as their application dated 9th August, 2010 is concerned, as deemed permission. In other words, the petitioners were not obliged to construct the mobile tower merely because there was no communication from the Corporation in response to their application dated 9th August, 2010 within 60 days, treating the same as deemed permission under subsection (5) of section 45 of the MRTP Act. In the circumstances, the challenge to the impugned notice on this ground WRIT PETITION NO.: 48 OF 2011 GTL Infrastructure Ltd. V/s The Dhule Municipal Corporation and others fails and rejected as such.

14. In the result, Writ petition is dismissed.

Rule is discharge. No costs.

15. However, dismissal of the petition shall not preclude the petitioner from making an application to the Corporation for regularisation of the mobile tower. If any such application is made by the petitioner, the Corporation, while dealing with the same, shall consider whether the mobile tower is in conformity with the requirements of all the relevant development control rules or bye-laws or WRIT PETITION NO.: 48 OF 2011 GTL Infrastructure Ltd. V/s The Dhule Municipal Corporation and others regulations framed in this behalf under any law for the time being in force and the same in no way violates either the provisions of any draft or final plan or proposals published by means of notice submitted for sanction under the MRTP Act.