Disposed

Atc Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorised Representative v. Lonavala Nagar Parishad and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jun 2018WP/4884/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the penalty and interest demanded by Lonavala Municipal Council for ten mobile towers. A dispute arose regarding the quantum payable for the tenth tower, but the respondent counsel agreed to follow due procedure and natural justice before issuing fresh bills.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to Respondents to issue fresh bills regarding penalty and interest for the 10 mobile towers after observing due procedure and natural justice.

Atc Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorised Representative Vs Lonavala Nagar Parishad and Ors. — Bombay HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Megha 5_wp_4884_2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4884 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1141 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4884 OF 2018

¶4

ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner Versus Lonaval Nagar Parishad and Ors. ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Hafeezur Rahman for the Petitioner. Mr. A.A. Garge for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP for the Respondent -State.

¶6

CORAM : RANJIT MORE AND

¶7

SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶8

DATED: 18^th JUNE, 2018.

¶9

P.C.:-

¶10

By this petition the Petitioner is mainly challenging the

¶11

penalty and interest demanded by the Respondent No.1-Lonavala Municipal Council regarding 10 mobile towers erected within the jurisdiction of the Respondent No.1-Lonavala Municipal Council.

¶12

The Petitioner contendes that the property tax in respect of these towers has already been paid to the Respondent No.1-Lonavala Municipal Council. The Petitioner claims that the demand to deposit

¶13

Megha

¶14

1/4

¶15

Megha 5_wp_4884_2018.doc

¶16

penalty and interest and the action of sealing of one of the towers situated near Lonavala bus stand was illegal and arbitrary.

¶17

By order dated 19^th April, 2018, we directed the Respondent No.1 to maintain status quo in respect of the 9 towers. So far as 10^th mobile tower near Lonavala bus stand the same was already sealed. We granted liberty to the Petitioner to deposit penalty and interest in respect of the said tower and on deposit of the same directions were given to the Respondent No.1 to de-seal the same.

¶18

The Petitioner thereafter deposited an amount of Rs.9,23,940/- towards interest and penalty in respect of the Mobile Tower at Lonavala bus stand. It was contended that despite the deposit of interest and penalty the Respondent No.1-Lonavala Municipal Council refused to de-seal the said 10^th Mobile tower. The Petitioner therefore approached this Court by way of Civil Application No.1141 of 2018.

¶19

The learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 does not dispute that the Petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.9,23,940/- in respect of the 10^th mobile tower at Lonavala bus stand towards penalty and interest. The Respondent No.1 claims that the Petitioner has not

¶20

Megha

¶21

2/4

¶22

Megha 5_wp_4884_2018.doc

¶23

paid the entire amount of interest and penalty. It is alleged that an

¶24

amount of Rs.2,10,652/- in respect of this tower is still due.

¶25

Since there is a dispute about the quantum of penalty and interest and considering that substantial amount has been paid by the Petitioner in respect of this mobile tower, Mr. Garge made a statement on 13^th June, 2018 that by 14^th June, 2018 they would de-seal the said mobile tower at Lonavala bus stand without prejudice to their rights. Today, Mr. Garge has placed on record a communication dated 14^th June, 2018 by the Chief Officer of Respondent No.1 as well as bill dated 15^th June, 2018. The communication shows that 10^th mobile tower at Lonavala bus stand is already de-sealed. However, it is the case of the Respondent No.1 that the Petitioner is still liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,10,650/- towards penalty and interest of the 10^th mobile tower at Lonavala bus stand.

¶26

Since the grievance of the Petitioner in the above petition is that amount of penalty and interest of 10^th Mobile tower is charged without following the due procedure and Mr. Garge the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 makes a statement that the procedure would be followed and fresh bills would be issued to the Petitioner in this regard and principle of natural justice would also be observed, we

¶27

Megha

¶28

3/4

¶29

Megha 5_wp_4884_2018.doc

¶30

dispose of the petition by passing the following order :

¶31

(i) The Respondent Nos.1 and 2-Lonavala Municipal Council

¶32

will be at liberty to issue fresh bills in respect of the penalty and interest for 10 mobile towers erected by the Petitioner. Needless to mention that the Respondent No.1 shall follow appropriate procedure as well as observe the principle of natural justice.

¶33

(ii) The Petitioner shall continue to pay the property tax in respect of the said 10 mobile towers regularly.

¶34

(iii) The Respondent No.1 shall also take into consideration the payment made by the Petitioner towards the penalty and interest in respect of the 10^th mobile tower at Lonavala bus stand.

¶35

In view of disposal of the petition, the civil application does not survive and hence stands disposed of.

¶36

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶37

Megha

¶38

4/4

Atc Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorised Representative v. Lonavala Nagar Parishad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atc Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorised Representative v. Lonavala Nagar Parishad and 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

Retd. Acp-Shinde Sarjerao Mahadev Vs Governor - Reserve Bank of India and 7 Ors.

Hanumanta Adappa Dakeri and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. and Soni H. Dekery and 2 Ors. (Applicants)

Mrs. Sangita Balkrishna Bagwale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Vinisha Vilas Tatkare and 9 Ors. Vs Deputy Collector (Western Suburban Sra and 8 Ors.

Vijaysingh Krishnarao Parbat Vs the State of Maharashtra

Atc Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorised Representative Vs Lonavala Nagar Parishad and Ors.