Telangana High Court
WP/28071/2008 of M/s. Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Limited, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, on 24 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 28071 of 2008 Between: M/s. Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Limited, 101,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADAWRIT PETITION NO : 28071 of 2008
Between:
M/s. Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Limited, 101, First Floor, Block -I,White House, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Circle Head, Sri B. SudhakarReddy, S/o. B. Radhakrishna Reddy, R/o. New Bowenpally, Hyderabad.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner,Lower Tank Bund,Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad.
2 Deputy Commissioner, Circle No.13, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the letter No.G/TPS/1794/2008-09 dated 16-12-2008 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary tothe provisions of H.M.C. Act and in violation of well settled principles ofnatural justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAMA RAO GHANTA
Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The petitioner, which is a Telecom Infrastructure Ltd, gave anapplication on 16.8.2008 to the first respondent seeking permission toinstall Cellular Tower over the building in H.No.LIG-49, Bharati Nagar,Ramachandrapuram, Medak District. But, no information is receivedthereon from the respondent. However, the petitioner, having waitedfor a month, installed the said Cellular Tower on the building andstarted operations. On the basis of the objections received from thearea, the 2[nd] respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on16.12.2008 asking it to remove the Cellular Tower within seven daysfrom the said house or otherwise, the same will be removed by thedepartment authorities. The said notice is under challenge.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedstanding counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.
According to the learned Standing Counsel, though thedeeming provision as provided for under Section 437 of theHyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short ‘the Act’) isapplicable for the purpose of installation of tower, in view of the factthat the petitioner has made the representation on 16.08.2008, it shallnot commence the operations without obtaining any prior permissionas provided for under Section 440 of the Act.
In view of the fact that the notice impugned herein directingthe petitioner to remove the Cellular Tower from the house in questionis not accompanied any show cause notice, it may not be necessaryfor this Court to go into the merits of the case at this stage of theproceedings Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of observing asfollows:
The petitioner may treat the notice impugned herein as a show cause notice and offer its explanation within a period of twoweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and theauthorities may pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunityof personal hearing within a period of two weeks thereafter. Pendingconsideration of the same, the respondent authorities shall not takeany coercive steps such as removal of the said Cellular Tower of thepetitioner.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
rkk
__________
24-12-2008