IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.51185/2019 (LB-BMP) Between:
Sri K. Manjunath, Son of P. Kotraiah, Aged about 61 years, Residing at No.44, 5th Temple Street, 4th Cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore City.
(By Sri. H.P. Leeladhar, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001.
… Petitioner 2. The Commissioner, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Hudson Circle, N.R. Square, Bangalore – 560 009.
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Malleshwaram Sub-Division, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Malleshwaram, Bangalore – 560 003.
4. Reliance Jio Infratel Private Ltd., A company registered under the Provisions of Companies Act, 2013 Having its Office at No.101, Safrul N.R. Centre Compound, Panchavati, 5 Rastha, Ambavadi, Ahmedabad, Gujarat State – 380 006 Represented by its Managing Director.
5. Reliance Jio Infratel Private Ltd., Having its Office at No.5 RMZ Icon, Palace Cross Road, Vasanthanagar, Bangalore – 560 052 Represented by its Authorised Signatory.
…Respondents (By Smt. Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R1; Sri H. Devendrappa, Advocate for R2 & R3; Notice to R4 & R5 dispensed with ) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the entire records in respect of impugned notice issued by the R-3 dated 26.08.2019 and quash the impugned notice dated 26.08.2019 issued by the R-3 under Annexure-G and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary hearing this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Issue notice to the respondents.
Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1.
Sri. H. Devendrappa, learned counsel accepts notice for respondents 2 and 3.
2. Petitioner has challenged the notice at Annexure-G, whereby the petitioner has been called upon to stop erection of mobile tower and to remove the said structure. The notice further stipulates that further proceedings would be taken as per the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) in the event of failure to remove the mobile tower structure that has been erected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent – Authority has no jurisdiction to issue any notice.
4. However, making it clear that the notice at Annexure-G cannot be acted upon unless and until the reply of the petitioner is considered and opportunity of hearing is afforded to the petitioner and action is preceded by a speaking order passed after due consideration of the reply. It is also made clear that while the respondent – BBMP has issued the notice, the notice ought to be unambiguous and clear as to the provision of law that is violated by the action of the petitioner. Prior to calling upon the petitioner and affording an opportunity of personal hearing, the respondent – BBMP to specify the violations with reference to the provisions of the Act.
5. Petition is disposed off with the following directions:-
(a) The respondent – Authority to consider the reply given by the petitioner. The authority to specify the specific provision of the Act which has been violated, by the action of the petitioner in putting up of mobile tower.
(b) To afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before any decision is taken as regards to the notice issued.
(c) Till such conclusion of proceedings as observed above, the respondent – Authority not to take any precipitative action.
Notice to respondent Nos.4 and 5 is dispensed with as no prejudicial order has been passed as regards respondents 4 and 5.
Sd/- JUDGE VP