IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.27584 of 2014 Between:
M/s. GTL Infrastructure Ltd., Navaketan Building, Flat No.207-208, Opp. Clock Tower, S.D. Road, Secunderabad Rep. by its authorized signatory.
.. Petitioner AND Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad.
.. Respondent The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.27584 of 2014 ORDER:
The petitioner company is authorized to provide telecom infrastructure. All the existing telecom infrastructure towers already erected by the telecom operators were transferred to the petitioner company and the petitioner company is maintaining the telecom towers. Several such towers were erected on the buildings within the jurisdiction of Secunderabad Cantonment Board (respondent Board). The respondent Board having noticed that without obtaining prior permission, as warranted by law, the owner of the building permitted erection of telecom towers and, therefore, issued individual notices to the owners of the buildings. Alarmed by the notices issued to the individual owners, where petitioner erected telecom towers and any action taken in pursuant to the notices issued would adversely affect the towers established by the petitioner, the petitioner company volunteered to submit detailed representation on 12.08.2014 to the respondent Board pointing out various legal provisions which mitigate against issuance of such show cause notices and explaining the statutory frame work within which the petitioner company is operating the telecom towers.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri G. Rama Rao, submits that even though detailed representation is submitted on 12.08.2014, since original show cause notices were not issued to them there is a possibility of the respondent Board not considering the representation submitted by the petitioner company and on the contrary taking coercive action as a consequent to the show cause notices issued on 06.08.2014. There are reports in the print media to that effect. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent Board submits that so far no decision is taken by the respondent Board and that the representation submitted by the petitioner company will also be considered by the respondent Board before taking a decision.
4. Having regard to the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without expressing any opinion on merits, directing the respondent Board to take into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner company on 12.08.2014 in addition to the individual explanation that may have been submitted by the owners of the buildings on whom show cause notices were issued on 06.08.2014, examine the contentions urged and pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner company also within a period of four (4) weeks. Until a final decision is taken, the respondent Board shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner company. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 17th September, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.27584 of 2014 Date: 17th September, 2014 KL