Disposed

Green View Welfare Association v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2013WP/10640/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In connected writ petitions, the court directed BBMP to consider granting permission and operating the tower along with objections from the residents welfare association within two months. The court disposed of the petitions after noting the construction status.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent BBMP to consider the request of the third respondent for operating the tower and objections from the petitioner within two months.

Green View Welfare Association Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^th DAY OF JUNE, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS

¶6

WP No.10640 OF 2013 c/w WP No.5608/2013[LB-RES]

¶7

WP NO 10640 OF 2013

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

GREEN VIEW WELFARE ASSOCIATION SOCIETY BEARING REG. NO.SOR-SJR, 104/07-08 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI.PRAKAAS S/O LATE HANUMANTH REDDY, AGE 44 YEARS, OCC:SERVICE, C/O 105, 4TH ‘D’ CROSS, KASTURINAGAR, EAST OF NGEF, BANGALORE-560043.

¶10

... PETITIONER (By Sri : D RAVIKUMAR GOKAKAKAR, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.

¶13

¶14

2.THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE MAHA NAGAR PALIKE, BYATRAYANPURA CIRCLE, VIDYARANYAPURA, SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE-560097.

¶15

3.ATC TOWER CORPORATION PVT LTD., REPRESENTED BY KUMAR A PATIL. AGE:MAJOR, R/O 309, VENKATESH COMPLEX, INDIRA NAGAR 100 FT ROAD, BANGALORE-38.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(By Sri : B V MURALIDHAR, ADV. FOR R2 Sri : SHIVA & RAWLEY, ADV. FOR R3)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO TAKE AN ACTION AGAINST THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN TERMS OF THE REPRESENTATIONS AT ANNEXURES-A TO A3.

¶19

WP NO 5608 OF 2013

¶20

BETWEEN

¶21

ATC TELECOM TOWER CORPORATION PVT LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. XCEL TELECOM PVT LTD), A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO B 15, IST FLOOR SECTOR 32, GURGAON 122 001 CIRCLE OFFICE AT

¶22

¶23

ATC TELECOM TOWER CORPORATION PVT LTD., NO 309,. SRI VENKATESH COMPLEX, I FLOOR INDIRANAGAR 100 FEET ROAD, BANGALORE 560 038 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR KUMAR A PATIL

¶24

... PETITIONER

¶25

(By Sri : SHIVA & RAWLEY, ADVs.)

¶26

AND

¶27

1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560 001

¶28

2.THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, CORPORATION CIRCLE BANGALORE 560 002

¶29

3.THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, C V RAMANAGAR SUB DIVISION IST A CROSS, 2ND HA MAIN ROAD, KASTHURINAGAR, BANGALORE-43

¶30

... RESPONDENTS

¶31

(By Sri : N.B.VISHWANATH, HCGP ADV FOR R1 Sri : K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADV. FOR R2-R3)

¶32

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2 AND 3 TO GRANT PERMISSION TO THE PETITIONER TO INSTALL THE TOWER IN THE SCH PROPERTY.

¶34

These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

In W.P.No.5608/2013 petitioner has prayed for a writ of

¶37

mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission to install

¶38

a telecommunication tower on property bearing No.129, 4^th J

¶39

Cross, East of NGEF, Bangalore. In W.P.No.10640/2013

¶40

petitioner, a residents’ welfare association has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents BBMP to take action against

¶41

the third respondent (petitioner in W.P.No.5608/2013).

¶42

In this order for convenience, the parties are

¶43

referred to their status in W.P.No.10640/2013. The grievance of

¶44

the petitioner – welfare association is that the third respondent is putting up a telecommunication tower in the property in question

¶45

without valid permission from the respondent BBMP and

¶46

¶47

therefore they sought for a direction to the BBMP to take action against the third respondent. This court vide order dated 14.02.2013 in W.P.No.5608/2013 granted an interim order permitting the third respondent to put up the tower and the same is subject to the outcome in the writ petition. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that they have now put up the tower on the property in question. Since the respondent BBMP has not issued any permission they are not using the tower.

¶48

Learned counsel for the BBMP submits that as early

¶49

as on 4.6.2012 they have communicated to the third respondent stating that the matter is pending before the higher authorities in BBMP and on their approval they will consider the request of the third respondent for grant of permission to put up and operate the tower and till such time the third respondent was directed not to proceed with the construction of the tower. In the facts and circumstances of this case the respondent BBMP is hereby directed to consider the request of third respondent for operating

¶50

¶51

the tower in question as expeditiously as possible and in any event

¶52

not later than two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondent BBMP shall also consider the objections filed by the residents welfare association. Accordingly the writ

¶53

petitions are hereby disposed of.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE.

¶55

DKB

Green View Welfare Association v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Green View Welfare Association v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Sadananda Bhandary Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Jagadeeshaiah K R Vs the Tumkur Urban Development Authority

S M Sathyanarayan Vs the Assistant Revenue Officer

Smt K Neelamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Amaresha Babu Vs the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Sri G Venkatarao Vs the Commissioner