M/S Gtl Infrastructure Ltd., v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT W.P. No.16333 OF 2011 ORDER:

Heard Mr.Shaik Khalid for petitioner, the standing counsel for 1st respondent and Ms.Kavitha Yadav for 2nd respondent. `The petitioner prays for Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in interfering with the erection of cell tower by petitioner company at H.No.16-1-24/ 244/ 1, Saidabad, near Water Tank, Hyderabad without following procedure prescribed by law, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

On 16.06.2011, this Court granted interim direction as prayed for.

The 2nd respondent filed petitions to implead and also to vacate the order dated 16.06.2011.

The issue for consideration by 1st respondent is whether the installation and/ or continuation of cell tower at H.No.16-1-24/ 244/ 1 is legal, valid and whether the 1st respondent can take note of representation filed by 2nd respondent association and pass comprehensive orders on establishment and continuation of cell tower at H.No.16-1-24/ 244/ 1.

Counsel for petitioner relies upon dec ision in P.Varalaxmi v. Commissioner and Special Officer, GHMC1 and counsel for 2nd respondent relies on unreported decision of this Court dated 03.01.2013 in W.P.No.1514 of 2009 and batch.

1 2013 (2) ALD 600 (DB)

I have perused the material available on record and also the decisions relied upon by the parties. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that at the first instance, the jurisdiction completely rests with the 1st respondent for considering the location, establishment and continuation of cell tower by petitioner and in the enquiry the 1st respondent proposes to conduct in this behalf the objections of members of 2nd respondent association are taken note of and proper findings recorded. The counsel consent to disposing of the writ petition by this order:

The 2nd respondent is given liberty to re-submit the representation filed against petitioner by enclosing a copy of this order within four weeks from today and the 1st respondent is directed to take up the representation and also the pending application of petitioner filed in this behalf, afford opportunity to both parties and pass orders within further period of two months from the date of filing of representation by 2nd respondent. The interim order granted on 16.06.2011 is directed to be continued till a decision is taken and communicated to the parties. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________ S.V.BHATT, J Date:10.08.2017 Stp