1

WRIT PETITION NO.: 48 OF 2011

GTL Infrastructure Ltd. V/s The Dhule Municipal Corporation and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT

AURANGABAD

APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.: 48 OF 2011

***

GTL Infrastructure Limited

A company incorporated under

the Companies Act, 1956 and

having its office at Global

House, Lane no.5, Prabhat Road,

Erandwane, Pune 411 004.

...

PETITIONER.

Versus

1.

The Dhule Municipal Corporation

through its Commissioner

having his office at Dhule.

2.

Assistant Director,

Town Planning,

Dhule Municipal Corporation,

having his office at Dhule.

3.

Assessor & Collector of Taxes

Tax Assessment Department,

Dhule Municipal Corporation,

having his office at Dhule.

4.

State of Maharashtra.

Through Principal Secretary,

Urban Development Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai.

...

RESPONDENTS

***

Mr. V. J. Dixit, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. L. V.

Sangit for the Petitioner.

Mr. S. P. Shah, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Mrs. V. A. Shinde, A.G.P. for Respondent No.4.

***

CORAM:

D. B. BHOSALE AND

S. B. DESHMUKH,JJ.

DATED:-

9th JUNE, 2011.

2

WRIT PETITION NO.: 48 OF 2011

GTL Infrastructure Ltd. V/s The Dhule Municipal Corporation and others

ORAL JUDGMENT:

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, inter-

alia, of providing infrastructure services for

erection of mobile towers/ cellular sites. The

petitioners claim that they had applied for

3

WRIT PETITION NO.: 48 OF 2011

GTL Infrastructure Ltd. V/s The Dhule Municipal Corporation and others

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

4

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 MR