1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of parties.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is basically directed against the notice dated 21st October, 2010 issued by Respondent No.1 Dhule Municipal Corporation (for short, the Corporation) under sections 260 and 478 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 (for short, BPMC Act) and section 52 and 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, MRTP Act). By this notice, petitioners are directed to remove/ demolish a mobile tower/ cellular site within 30 days, which has been erected/ constructed without permission of the Corporation.

3. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is in the business, interalia, of providing infrastructure services for erection of mobile towers/ cellular sites. The petitioners claim that they had applied for permission for erection of the mobile tower as provided for under section 44 of the MRTP Act. Further, it is their case that since the decision on their application for permission for development/ construction of mobile tower was not communicated by the Corporation, either granting or refusing to grant permission to them, within 60 days from the date of receipt of their application, they carried out the development treating it as deemed permission as contemplated by subsection (5) of section 45 of the MRTP Act and, hence, according to the petitioners the impugned notice is illegal.

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 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 "PuneMunicipal Corporation, Pune V/s Nanasaheb Nagoji Bhosale" AIR 1995 Bombay 164.

6. We have perused the provisions of section 44 and 45 of the MRTP Act, so also the provisions of section 260 and 478 of the BPMC Act. There is no dispute that construction/ erection of a mobile tower amounts to "development" within the meaning of section 2 (7) of the MRTP Act and for its construction/ erection a permission of the Planning Authority is necessary as provided for under section 45 of the said Act. Section 44 of the MRTP Act provides the procedure for seeking permission for development. Under this provision, it is necessary for a person intending to carry out any development on any land to make an application in writing to the Planning Authority for permission "in such form" and containing such par