IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH 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., 7th 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.
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 3rd 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 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 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