THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P. NO. 28198 OF 2014 Date of Judgment: 9.10.2014 Between:
M/s. Indus Towers Limited …Petitioner And The Government of A.P. and another ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P. NO. 28198 OF 2014 ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the first respondent and Mr. G. Elisha, learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent.
The petitioner erected a cell tower at the terrace of house bearing door No. 4-146 situated at Old Gaigolapadu, Ramaniahpet, Kakinada, East Godavari district. It is the specific case of the petitioner that by order of the Government in Memo No. 9185/P1Siv/A2/2004-2, dated 22.12.2004 exemption was granted in favour of the petitioner from building regulations to erect/construct Base Transmission Towers and its related services to install cellular mobile network equipment for telecom operation with certain conditions and after duly complying with the conditions, the petitioner erected a cell tower in 2006. The present writ petition, however, came to be filed as the petitioner’s landlord was served with an urgent notice dated 13.1.2014 by the Ramanaiahpeta Gram Panchayat – 2nd respondent threatening to take action under the provisions of the Gram Panchayat Act, 1994, if the cell tower is not removed on account of the allegation of causing health hazard and also on the ground that the erection of cell tower itself is unauthorized. On coming to know of the said notice, the petitioner has given a detailed reply dated 14.2.2014 bringing various other facts to the notice of the 2nd respondent. The present writ petition, however, alleges that without passing any order on the basis of the said reply filed by the petitioner, there is a threat of interference with the use of cell tower by the petitioner and the cell tower is likely to be removed which would cause serious prejudice to him. The petitioner also alleges that when he has erected the cell tower, no notice was issued to him before taking any action.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the petitioner was granted exemption by the Government as referred to above and the petitioner has also explained all the circumstances under his reply dated 14.2.2014, referred to above. In the circumstances, therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct the second respondent to consider the reply, if any, received from the landlord of the petitioner as well as the petitioner’s reply in response to the urgent notice issued by him, dated 13.1.2014 and then take appropriate action in accordance law by passing a reasoned order. Till appropriate decision is taken, as directed above, the second respondent shall not interfere with the use of cell tower by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 9.10.2014 KR