The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners are required to obtain license from the respondent-local bodies for erecting mobile towers and are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per annum per mobile tower as tax to the respondent-local bodies until appropriate rules are framed for levying taxes on mobile towers.

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.

In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the municipal authorities/local bodies under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, ‘KMC Act’) and Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, ‘Panchayat Raj Act’) have to authority to make physical demand in respect of telecommunication towers installed in their limits further for a writ of certiorari to quash the demand notices issued by the respondents to the petitioner demanding payment of certain amounts as hereunder:

W.P. NOs Annexures Dated Amount

19530 of 2005 F 8-5-2005 1,40,000/- 7162,7472 and 7473 of 2009 NIL NIL NIL 7163,and 7487 to 7492 of 2009 NIL NIL NIL 7164, 7485 and 7486 of 2009 E1 18-2-2009 3,12,520/- E2 18-2-2009 1,23,039/- E3 18-2-2009 4,31,852/- 7165 and 7474 to 7484 of 2009 G1 26-2-2009 25,000/- G2 4-2-2009 25,000/- G3 18-2-2009 2,39,244/- G4 18-2-2009 89,826 G5 18-2-2009 1,30,453 G6 18-2-2009 1,32,024 G7 18-2-2009 1,30,630 G8 18-2-2009 1,29,268 G9 18-2-2009 1,22,508 G10 18-2-2009 1,30,154 G11 18-2-2009 2,31,981 G12 18-2-2009 1,28,748 G13 18-2-2009 50,000 8124 to 8132 of 2009 E1 18-2-2009 85,980 E3 25-2-2009 32,000 E7 29-1-2009 50,000 8133 and 8134 of 2009 E1 16-3-2009 7,500 E2 4-3-2009 25,000 12368 of 2009 A 22-1-2009 50,000

2. Petitioners contend that they have obtained licence from the Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications, Government of India under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to provide infrastructure support and assistance to telecom service providers. In terms of the licence, petitioners are establishing telecommunication network and as a part of it, they are erecting and installing base trans-receiver stations/telecommunication towers all over the State of Karnataka and within the limits of various local bodies. Petitioners are erecting and installing the towers on private properties after obtaining necessary permission by way of lease or licence from the respective owners. Since the local bodies are creating problems for the petitioners in the matter of erecting towers by insisting them to obtain no objection certificate, licence, permission etc., petitioners approached Government of Karnataka for a general direction to all the local bodies. Reacting to the request of the petitioners and others, Government of Karnataka issued a circular on 2-3-2005 permitting them to install and erect the towers subject to the following conditions.

(i) The companies shall ensure safety of the structure and upon which the tower is erected and also the stability of the tower itself.

(ii) The companies shall be bound by any levy imposed by the local bodies.

(iii) The companies shall be responsible for the safety to general public

(iv) The companies shall abide by all the applicable rules and regulations.

3. Despite this general Circular dated 2-3-2005 issued by the Government of Karnataka, the local bodies/respondents are issuing demand notices as stated above to pay licence fee/tax/charges/cess etc. Aggrieved by this action of the respondents and local bodies, petitioners are before this Court.

4. Sri Vijayashankar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contend that under the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act licences are issued in favour of the petitioners by collecting necessary licence fee. Therefore, the petitioners are not liable to pay any other fee or licencce charges to the local bodies/ respondents under the provisions the three enactments-Municipalities Act, KMC Act and Panchayat Raj Act. Under the provisions of these three Acts, respondent-local bodies can only levy property tax in respect of land and buildings and as such they are not entitled to collect any fee/tax or cess from the petitioners for erecting telecommunication towers. The demand of respondent local bodies is therefore contrary to the provisions of the Acts referred to above. It is contended that the power to levy tax under the provisions of the above three Ac