SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 1640

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
S.J. Kathawalla, Milind N. Jadhav, JJ.
ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – Appellant
Versus
Group Grampanchayat, Tupgaon and Others – Respondents
W. P. (St) No. 11396 of 2021
Decided On : 04-08-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sarosh Bharucha, D. S. Patil
For the Respondents: Nitin Mulye, R. S. Pawar

Adherence to the principles of natural justice is essential for orders passed by public authorities.

Headnote:

Telecom Infrastructure - Cancellation of NOC - Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 - [Section 52 of the MVP Act] - The court quashed the Impugned Notice issued by the Respondents and directed them to issue a fresh show cause notice, grant a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order. The Petitioner was allowed to install and operate the mobile tower subject to the final outcome of the show cause notice.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner, a telecom infrastructure provider, challenged the cancellation of the permission to construct a mobile tower on a land. The Respondents issued the Impugned Notice without providing a show cause notice or a hearing to the Petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Impugned Notice was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Respondents unilaterally cancelled the unconditional permission granted to the Petitioner without giving an opportunity to respond to the issues raised.

Issues: Violation of natural justice, unilateral cancellation of permission, failure to provide an opportunity to respond to the issues raised by the Respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: Adherence to the principles of natural justice is essential for orders passed by public authorities. The Petitioner must be given an opportunity to respond to any issues raised before any detrimental order is passed.

Final Decision: The Impugned Notice was quashed and set aside. The Respondents were directed to issue a fresh show cause notice, grant a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order. The Petitioner was allowed to install and operate the mobile tower subject to the final outcome of the show cause notice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of providing passive telecom infrastructure and related services to various telecom service providers in India for transmission of mobile and internet signals. The Petitioner is registered with the Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communication & IT, Government of India as an Infrastructure Provider, Category-1 (IP-1).

3. The Respondent No.1 is the Group Grampanchayat of Tupgaon, Taluka Khalapur, District Raigad constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 ("the MVP Act"). The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Gramsevak and Administrator of the Respondent No.1 respectively. Respondent No.4 is the Tehsildar, Khalapur. Respondent No.5 is the Collector, Raigad District. Respondent No.6 is the State of Maharashtra through the Rural Development Department. Respondent No.7 is the owner of the land on which the Petitioner has sought to set up its mobile tower.

4. The Petitioner has, by way of the present Petition, challenged a Notice dated 31st May 2021 (Exhibit K to the Petition) ("the Impugned Notice") issued by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. The Impugned Notice cancels the permission / no objection certificate dated 9th April 2021 (Exhibit E to the Petition) granted by the said Respondents to the Petitioner for construction of its ground based mobile tower on an open plot of land belonging to the Respondent No.7 situate at Village Tupgaon, Post Chowk, Taluka Khalapur, District Raigad ("the said land"). No reliefs are sought against the Respondent No.7.

5. The Petitioner's case in brief as set out in the Petition is as follows:

5.1 In order to ensure a uniform and homogenous practice across the country for installation of telecommunication towers, the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India issued the Advisory Guidelines for State Governments for Issue of Clearance for Installation of Mobile Towers dated 1st August 2013 (Exhibit A to the Petition) ("the DOT Guidelines") in supersession of all earlier guidelines. The DOT Guidelines inter alia provide a list of documents required to be submitted by an infrastructure provider like the Petitioner to a local authority for permission to install a mobile tower.

5.2 The General Administration Department of the State of Maharashtra notified a Government Resolution dated 17th February 2018 bearing no. DIR065/CR1/2018 containing comprehensive guidelines pertaining to setting up and maintaining telecom infrastructure in the State of Maharashtra (Exhibit C to the Petition) ("the 2018 Policy"). The 2018 Policy was in supersession of all earlier guidelines issued by the State of Maharashtra.

5.3 The Petitioner entered into a Leave and License Agreement with the Respondent No.7 in respect of the said land.

5.4 The Petitioner filed an application dated 11th March 2021 (Exhibit 2 to the Reply) with the Respondent No.1 for permission to install a ground based mobile tower on the said land.

5.5 The Respondent No.1 through the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 granted a no objection certificate dated 9th April 2021 (Exhibit E to the Petition) ("NOC") to the Petitioner permitting it to install its mobile tower on the said land.

5.6 Based on the NOC, the Petitioner started the installation work and had completed about 60% of the work. The plinth work was completed whereas the metal structure of the tower remained to be installed.

5.7 On 31st May 2021, the Petitioner received a notice dated 27 th May 2021 issued by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 (Exhibit G to the Petition) ("the Stop Work Notice"). The Stop Work Notice inter alia stated that complaints had been received from the villagers stating that they were worried about the harmful effects of the radiation which the Petitioner's mobile tower would emit. That the tower should therefore be installed outside the village. That the Petitioner should stop the installation work ti

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top