1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

WRIT PETITION No.51969/2019 (LB-RES)

Between:

M/s. Indus Towers Ltd.,

No.12, Tower-D.,

7^th Floor, Subramanya Arcade,

Bannerghatta Road,

Bangalore – 29,

Represented by its

Authorized Signatory,

Sri Aziz K.A.,

Aged about 38 years.

… Petitioner

(By Sri Mahesh B.J., Advocate)

And:

1.

The State of Karnataka,

Represented by its

Chief Secretary,

Vidhana Soudha,

Bangalore – 1.

2.

The Ministry of IT, BT & S & T.

Government of Karnataka,

MS Building,

Bangalore – 560 001,

Represented by

Additional Chief Secretary.

2

3.

The Chief Officer,

Town Panchayath,

Virajpet,

Kodagu District – 571 218.

…Respondents

(By Smt. Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R1 & R2;

Sri R. Subramanya, Advocate for R3)

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the

order/notice dated 04.10.2019 passed/issued by the Chief

Officer, Town Panchayath, Virajpet, Kodagu District (R3) vide

Annexure-A and etc.

This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing

this day, the Court, made the following:

ORDER

Petitioner is stated to have obtained a monthly

lease of tenancy rights from the owner of the property

and has put up a mobile tower. Petitioner has

challenged the order at Annexure-A dated 04.10.2019

passed by the 3^rd respondent. Admittedly, the said order

is passed under Section 187(9)(c) of the Karnataka

Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’).

2.

Upon notice, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.3 submits that as against the order

3

under Section 187(9)(c) of the Act, petitioner has an

alternative remedy under Section 343(1)(ii) of the Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

however contend that in light of Regulation No.6(6-A) of

the Karnataka Installation of New Telecommunication

Infrastructure Towers Regulation, 2019, three months

time was granted for the persons who have put up

mobile tower to take necessary permission from the

sanctioning authority. It is further submitted that the

Government is considering extension of said time.

Accordingly, impugned order passed under Section

187(9)(c) of the Act ought to be stayed.

4.

However, all the above contentions would

very well be urged before the appellate authority under

Section 343(1)(ii) of the Act.

In light of the availability of appellate remedy,

petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner

4

to avail the remedy as regards Annexure-A before the

appellate authority under Section 343(1)(ii) of the Act. If

the petition under Section 343(1)(ii) of the Act is filed

before the appellate authority, request for interim order

would be considered expeditiously in accordance with

law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VP