Disposed

Idea Cellular Ltd. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Sept 2013WP/1103/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court found challenges to Mumbai Rules regulating mobile towers infructuous due to subsequent Central Government guidelines and prior judgments protecting petitioners. Directions were issued for petitioners to submit representations regarding the refund of excess tower deposits, to be adjudicated by Municipal Corporations.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit representations for refund of excess tower deposits; Municipal Corporations to decide and refund within stipulated timelines.

Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

(1) Writ Petition No. 536 of 2006 With

¶4

Civil Application No. 2588 of 2007 and Civil Application No. 7260 of 2007 (In Writ Petition No. 536 of 2006)

¶5

Idea Cellular Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and having its Registered Office at Suman Tower, Plot No.18, Sector 11, Gandhinagar - 382 011, Gujarat, and having its Corporate Office at 11/1, Sharda Centre, Erandvana, Pune, and Circle Office at the Metropole, S1, S2 & S3, Second Floor, D-1 CTS No.11, Civil Lines, Bund Garden Road, Adjacent to Inox Multiplex, .. Petitioner / Pune 411 001. Applicant.

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 020.

¶8

The Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner. .. Respondents.

¶9

(2)

¶10

Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate, with Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate, for the petitioner / Applicant.

¶11

Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1.

¶12

Mr. D.V. Soman, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

¶13

With

¶14

(2) Writ Petition No. 1103 of 2009 With

¶15

Civil Application No. 9665 of 2010 (In Writ Petition No. 1103 of 2009)

¶16

¶17

.. Petitioner / Applicant.

¶18

versus

¶19

The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶20

The Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner.

¶21

.. Respondents.

¶22

(3)

¶23

Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate, with Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate, for the petitioner / Applicant.

¶24

Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1.

¶25

Mrs. Manjusha A. Deshpande, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

¶26

With

¶27

Civil Application No. 12892 of 2010 (In Writ Petition No. 1103 of 2009)

¶28

Shirish s/o. Shantikumar Khandare & 10 others.

¶29

.. Applicants.

¶30

versus

¶31

Idea Cellular Limited & 2 others.

¶32

.. Non-applicants.

¶33

Mrs. Madhubala Gangwal, Advocate, for the applicants.

¶34

Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate, for non-applicant no.1.

¶35

Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for non-applicant no.2.

¶36

Mrs. Manjusha A. Deshpande, Advocate, for non-applicant no.3.

¶37

(4)

¶38

With

¶39

(3) Writ Petition No. 6671 of 2009 With

¶40

Civil Application No. 2096 of 2010 and Civil Application No. 82 of 2013 (In Writ Petition No. 6671 of 2009)

¶41

Quippo telecom Infrastructure Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and having its Registered Office at D-2, 5th Floor, Southern Park, Saket Place, Saket, New Delhi - 110 017, and having its circle office at Office No.102, 1st Floor, MPJ Chambers, Plot No. B-1, Mumbai-Pune Road, Wakdewadi, Pune, Taluka & District : Pune.

¶42

.. Petitioner / Applicant.

¶43

versus

¶44

The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶45

The Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner.

¶46

.. Respondents.

¶47

Mr. P.S. Chavan, Advocate, for the petitioner / Applicant.

¶48

Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1.

¶49

Mr. A.M. Karad, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

¶50

(5)

¶51

With

¶52

(4) Writ Petition No. 841 of 2010 With

¶53

Civil Application No. 80 of 2013 (In Writ Petition No. 841 of 2010)

¶54

Wireless-TT Info Services Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and having its Registered Office at 5th Floor, KLK Estate, Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad, State of Andhra Pradesh and having its circle office at Office no.102, 1st Floor, MPJ Chambers, Plot No. B-1, Mumbai-Pune Road, Wakdewadi, Pune, Taluka & District : Pune.

¶55

.. Petitioner / Applicant.

¶56

versus

¶57

The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶58

The Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner. .. Respondents.

¶59

Mr. P.S. Chavan, Advocate, for the petitioner / Applicant.

¶60

(6)

¶61

Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1.

¶62

Mr. A.M. Karad, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

¶63

With

¶64

(5) Writ Petition No. 4489 of 2010

¶65

Tower Vision India Private Limited, Through its Authorized Officer, Shri Dnyanesh R. Walimbe, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Manager Legal, Regd. Office 1st Floor, C-Wing, Safire Park, Galleria, Wakadewadi, Shivajinagar, Pune.

¶66

.. Petitioner.

¶67

versus

¶68

The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶69

The Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation, through its Municipal Commissioner at Nanded.

¶70

.. Respondents.

¶71

(7)

¶72

Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate, with Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶73

Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1.

¶74

Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

¶75

With

¶76

(6) Writ Petition No. 5978 of 2010

¶77

Idea Cellular Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and has its Registered Office at Suman Baug, Plot No. 18, Sector 11, Gandhinagar - 382 011 (Gujarat) and having its Circle office at 11/1, Sharda Centre, Erandvane, Pune - 411 004.

¶78

.. Petitioner.

¶79

versus

¶80

The Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon.

¶81

The Municipal Commissioner, Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon.

¶82

The Assistant Town Planner, Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon.

¶83

(8)

¶84

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. .. Respondents.

¶85

Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate, with Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶86

Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.4.

¶87

With

¶88

(7) Writ Petition No. 6287 of 2010

¶89

Tower Vision India Private Limited, Through its Authorized Officer, Shri Monish S. Nilwant, Age : 26 years, Occupation : : Assistant Manager (Legal), Regd. Office 1st Floor, C-Wing, Safire Park, Galleria, Wakadewadi, Shivajinagar, Pune. .. Petitioner.

¶90

versus

¶91

The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶92

The Municipal Corporation of City of Jalgaon, through its Municipal Commissioner at Jalgaon. .. Respondents.

¶93

(9)

¶94

Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate, with Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶95

Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1.

¶96

Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

¶97

With

¶98

(8) Writ Petition No. 6448 of 2010 With

¶99

Civil Application No. 9843 of 2010 (In Writ Petition No. 6448 of 2010)

¶100

Idea Cellular Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and has its Registered Office at Suman Baug, Plot No.18, Sector 11, Gandhinagar - 382 011 (Gujarat), and having its Circle office at 11/1, Sharda Centre, Erandvane, Pune - 411 004.

¶101

.. Petitioner / Applicant.

¶102

versus

¶103

Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, through its Commissioner.

¶104

(10)

¶105

Administrative Officer, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad.

¶106

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. .. Respondents.

¶107

Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate, with Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate, for the petitioner / Applicant.

¶108

Mr. A.M. Karad, Advocate, for respondent no.1 and 2.

¶109

Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.3.

¶110

With

¶111

(9) Writ Petition No. 6497 of 2010

¶112

Reliance Communications Limited, and Reliance Infratel Ltd. companies incorporated, under the Companies Act, 1956, and having its Registered Office at H. Block, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Kopar Khairane, Navi Mumbai - 400 710, and having its office at 4th Floor, Aurangabad Business Centre, Adalat Road, Aurangabad 431 001, through its Authorised Signatory, Shri Mukund Page.

.. Petitioner.

versus

(11)

The Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner, having his office at Town Hall, Aurangabad - 431 001.

¶117

Administrative Officer, Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, having his office at Town Hall, Aurangabad - 431 001.

¶118

The State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. .. Respondents.

¶119

Mr. S.G. Karlekar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶120

Mr. A.M. Karad, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶121

Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.3.

¶122

With

¶123

(10) Writ Petition No. 6498 of 2010

¶124

Idea Cellular Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and has its Registered Office at Suman Baug, Plot No.18, Sector 11, Gandhinagar - 382 011 (Gujarat), and having its Circle office at 11/1, Sharda Centre, Erandvane, Pune - 411 004.

¶125

(12)

¶126

Girish s/o. Maroti Pawar, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Service, Presently working as Deputy General Manager (Legal), Idea Cellular Limited, R/o. 11/1, Sharada Center, Erandwane, Pune - 411 004. .. Petitioners. versus 1. Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, through its Commissioner. 2. Administrative Officer, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. 3. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. .. Respondents. .........................

¶127

Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate, with Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate, for the petitioner / Applicant. Mr. A.M. Karad, Advocate, for respondent no.1 and 2. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.3.

¶128

With

¶129

(13)

¶130

Civil Application No. 11384 of 2010 (In Writ Petition No. 6498 of 2010)

¶131

Shri Mahendra s/o. Bapuji Khairnar & 2 others.

¶132

.. Applicants.

¶133

versus

¶134

Idea Cellular Ltd. & 3 others. .. Non-applicants.

¶135

Mr. B.R. Jaybhay, Advocate, for the applicants.

¶136

Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate, with Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate, for non-applicant no.1.

¶137

Mr. A.M. Karad, Advocate, for non-applicant nos.2 and 3.

¶138

Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for non-applicant no.4.

¶139

With

¶140

(11) Writ Petition No. 6533 of 2010 With

¶141

Civil Application No. 85 of 2013 (In Writ Petition No. 6533 of 2010)

¶142

Wireless-TT Info Services Limited, A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and having its Registered office at 1-8-368 to 372 Gowra Trinity, 5th Floor, Chiran Fort Land, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Having its Circle Office At No. 509 to 515,

¶143

(14)

¶144

5th Floor, City Point Building, Dhole Patil Road, Boat Club Road, Pune - 411 001.

¶145

.. Petitioner / Applicant.

¶146

versus

¶147

Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, through its Commissioner.

¶148

Administrative Officer, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad.

¶149

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. .. Respondents.

¶150

Mr. P.S. Chavan, Advocate, for the petitioner / Applicant. Mr. A.M. Karad, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶151

Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.3.

¶152

With

¶153

(12) Writ Petition No. 6794 of 2010 With

¶154

Civil Application No. 86 of 2013 (In Writ Petition No. 6794 of 2010)

¶155

(15)

¶156

Twenty First Century Infra Tele Limited, A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and having its Registered office at 1-8-368 to 372, Gowra trinity, 5th Floor, Chiran Fort Land, Begumpet, Hyderabad, having its Circle Office at No. 509 to 515, 5th Floor, City Point Building, Dhole Patil Road, Boat Club Road, Pune - 411 001.

¶157

.. Petitioner / Applicant.

¶158

versus

¶159

The Nanded-Waghala Municipal Corporation, Nanded, Through its Commissioner.

¶160

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.

¶161

.. Respondents.

¶162

Mr. P.S. Chavan, Advocate, for the petitioner / Applicant.

¶163

Mr. M.V. Deshpande, Advocate, for respondent no.1.

¶164

Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.2.

¶165

With

¶166

(13) Writ Petition No. 6810 of 2010

¶167

Idea Cellular Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and has its

¶168

(16)

¶169

Registered Office at Suman Baug, Plot No.18, Sector 11, Gandhinagar - 382 011 (Gujarat), and having its Circle office at 11/1, Sharda Centre, Erandvane, Pune - 411 004. .. Petitioner.

¶170

versus

¶171

Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation, Nanded, through its Commissioner.

¶172

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. .. Respondents. ...........................

¶173

Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate, with Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate, for the petitioiner. Mr. M.V. Deshpande, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.2.

¶174

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.

¶175

DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER 2013

¶176

COURT'S ORDER (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :

¶177

Heard learned respective Counsel for the parties.

¶178

(17)

¶179

Challenge in all these petitions is to Rules framed on 23rd January 2009, in the shape of Minutes of Meeting dated 22nd January 2009, to regulate erection of towers to provide mobile services.

¶180

Learned Sr. Adv. Mr. Dixit submits that in so far as State of Maharashtra is concerned, a proposal to involve uniform policy was already under consideration and in the light of that proposal, several Writ Petitions raising challenges to demands made were earlier disposed of by this Court. Thus, judgment dated 21st December 2012, delivered in Writ Petition No. 825 of 2009 and connected petitions still holds the field. It is further submitted that in any case, on 1st August 2013, in consultation with various State Government Officials, Department of Telecommunication has issued advisory guidelines for State Governments, regulating issuance of clearance for installation of mobile towers. He submits that, thus, till date, Rules impugned in these petitions, have not been acted upon and implemented.

¶181

Learned respective Counsel appearing for the respondents have opposed the petitions. However, they do not dispute the facts noted by us above.

¶182

In view of these developments, it is apparent that the Rules impugned in the present petitions have not been so far acted upon or used to the prejudice of any of the petitioners. In any case, the petitioners are protected by the the judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 825 of 2009 and connected petitions. The Central Government itself,

¶183

(18)

¶184

through its Department of Telecommunication, has circulated new guidelines effective from 1st August 2013.

¶185

We, therefore, find that the grievance sought to be redressed no longer survives. By passage of time and in view of subsequent developments, the challenge is rendered infructuous.

¶186

In all these matters, the petitioners seek refund of amount deposited by them, either with the Registry of this Court or then, Municipal Corporations. According to the petitioners, the Corporation is entitled to claim only Rs. 30,000/- per tower and amount in excess thereof must be returned to them.

¶187

Respective Counsel appearing for the Corporation are opposing any such order at this stage. According to them, dues payable to Corporation need to be worked out and after adjusting the same, balance amount can be refunded. They submit that if appropriate representation is made by the petitioners in this respect, same shall be decided forthwith and amount refundable shall then be immediately refunded.

¶188

We have perused the judgment dated 21st December 2012, delivered in Writ Petition No. 825 of 2009 and other connected petitions. In paragraph 38(3) of the said judgment, the Court has asked respective Municipal Corporations / Municipal Councils to refund the amount after deducting the amount as permissible in accordance with draft proposal [policy] dated 26th July 2011, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within six months from the date on which that judgment was pronounced.

¶189

(19)

¶190

That period of six months has already expired. These directions to refund the amount were issued in those Writ Petitions and the amounts have been deposited in Writ Petitions today before us.

¶191

In the light of directions contained in judgment dated 21st December 2012, we find that interest of justice can be met with by directing the petitioners to submit appropriate representations seeking refund, giving necessary details, within a period of two weeks from today. If such representations are received by the respective Municipal Commissioners of the respondents / Municipal Corporations, they shall take necessary decision upon it, within further period of four weeks. The amount found refundable shall be returned to the respective claimants within further period of four weeks.

¶192

Acceptance of that refund shall not preclude the petitioners from challenging correctness of the exercise undertaken. If the amount is deposited with the Registry of this Court, the amount found refundable can be withdrawn from the office of this Court by the respective claimants.

¶193

With the above directions, and with liberty to the petitioners, to renew their grievance if the impugned Rules are sought to be used against them in future, we dispose of present Writ Petitions. Rule in Writ Petition No. 536 of 2006 is discharged. No costs.

¶194

(20)

¶195

In view of disposal of the Writ Petitions, Civil Applications do not survive and the same are disposed of.

¶196

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶197

bgp/wp536etc

Idea Cellular Ltd. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idea Cellular Ltd. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhupendra Darbarsing Raval Vs the State Election Commission and Others

Suresh Sakhabapu Deshmukh Vs the State of Mah

Samad Razak Patel and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Latabai Vitthal Kate and Others Vs Mallikarjun Apparao Rajmane and Others