Dismissed

Hutchison Essar Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Feb 2007WP/3124/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged the issuance of a stop work notice by the BMC without prior permission for cellular base stations. The court directed the BMC to decide pending applications with reasoned orders within three months and prohibited demolition of existing structures.

What did the court decide?

The pending orders should be decided within three months. No demolition should be made till the order is given.

Hutchison Essar Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORIGINAL SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3124 OF 2006

¶5

Hutchison Essar Ltd...Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr.C.U.Singh a/w. Mr.P.B.Anand for the petitioners.
Mr.K.R.Belosay, Off.G.P. for respondent no.1.

¶10

Ms.P.A. Purandare for respondent nos.2 to 6.

¶11

CORAM: J.N.PATEL, J. And

¶12

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶13

DATE ; 8TH FEBRUARY, 2007.

¶14

P.C :-

¶15

1.Heard. The petition can be disposed off at
the stage of admission itself. The petitioner has
come with a grievance that respondent no.2 and its
officers have issued Stop Work notice

¶16

:2:

¶17

No.GN/POD/354(A)/558/2004-2005 dated 22.12.2005
without taking a decision in the matter of application
pending before them for seeking permission to erect
the structure for the purpose of operating antennas
for the petitioner company in order to have a cellular
Base Station in the region.

¶18

2.The learned Counsel appearing for the BMC
submits that in so far as the order directing the
demolition of Cellular Base Station of the
petitioner’s situated on the terrace of the Building
Mukund Nagar Satyam Co-operative Housing Society,
Mukund Nagar, Dharavi stands demolished. The

¶19

competent authority of the B.M.C. i.e. the
Additional Municipal Commissioner to decide the said
application of the petitioner by giving reasoned
order after giving them due opportunity of hearing.
In respect of applications which are listed in
Exhibit G for new permission and applications which
are listed in Exhibit K for renewal of permission be
also heard and decided in accordance with law. We
will highly appreciate if the competent authority of
the B.M.C. takes a decision in the matter as

¶20

:3:

¶21

expeditiously as possible within a period of three
months and in the mean time they shall not carry out
any demolition of structure which are already erected
and are listed at Exhibit G and K to the petition.

¶22

Petition stands disposed off accordingly.

¶23

sd/-

¶24

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)

Hutchison Essar Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hutchison Essar Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gerald Paul D Mello Vs the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbi and 2 Ors.

Dindayal Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Vs Forward Market Commission and Anr.

New Era Alkoloids and Exports Ltd. Vs Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd.

M/S. Aatish Dani Investment Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Ritesh Narottamdas Dani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Jacinto a. Rodrigues Vs Pratap Dattatraya Mantri and 7 Ors.