Disposed

REliance Infratel Limited, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commision

Telangana HC24 Sept 2012WP/27922/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, Reliance Infratel challenged an interim order by the Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission to disconnect power to its telecom tower. The Court disposed of the petition, directing the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to dispose of the petitioner's licence application after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Directed GHMC to dispose of the licence application to the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the complainant.

REliance Infratel Limited, Vs The Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.27922 OF 2011

¶3

DATED:24.9.2012

¶4

Between: Reliance Infratel Limited 5^th Floor, Plot No.38, Phase-2 Hi-tech City Madhapur Hyderabad Rep. by its Hub Commercial Head Mr. Vadali Subrahmanyam … Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission Gruhakalpa MJ Road Nampally Hyderabad Rep. by its Registrar and others … Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.27922 OF 2011

¶8

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶9

This writ petition is filed inter alia to declare the order dt.9.9.2011 passed by respondent No.1 – Human Rights Commission, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to set aside the same.

¶10

The case of the petitioners is that on complaints made by respondent No.5 to respondent No.1 – Commission stating that the petitioners have constructed a base level tele communication tower on a site near his house violating the rules, and that respondent No.6 – landlord has also violated the rules and regulations of the Government and Municipal Authorities, and sought the Commission to take immediate action for removal of power connection and generator from the premises in question and shifting of the tower to another place, the Commission passed an interim order dt.9.9.2001 directing respondent No.2 – Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) to take immediate steps to stop power supply to the petitioners’ tele communication tower.

¶11

Being aggrieved by the said order, present writ petition is filed.

¶12

It appears that consequent to the order of respondent No.1, power supply to the petitioners’ tele communication tower was disconnected. The case of the petitioners is that respondent No.1 – Commission without making them as a party in the matter in question passed the impugned order, and without giving a chance of being

¶13

heard to them electricity supply was disconnected to their tele communication tower. It is now submitted that the matter has been finally disposed of by respondent No.1 – Commission directing the respondent authorities to take steps in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶14

In view of that, and since an application was statedly filed by the petitioners before the GHMC for grant of required licence and permission to erect the tele communication tower in the land in question and to carry on their business through the tower, we only direct respondent No.2 – GHMC to dispose of the said application, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners along with the complainant – respondent No.5, by passing a reasoned order in the matter in accordance with the provisions of law, within a period of four weeks from date. We further direct that the order so passed shall be communicated to the petitioners within three days from the date of passing the order. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, they shall be at liberty to take steps in accordance with the provisions of law before appropriate forum.

¶15

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No

¶16

costs.

¶17

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶18

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 24.9.2012 bnr

REliance Infratel Limited, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commision

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

REliance Infratel Limited, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commision

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

The Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Vs K.V. Sharmila , Venkata Sharmila

Maruthi Ispat and Energy Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Government of India

D.Prabhakar Rao, Vs The District Collector

Balala Hakkula Sangham Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

B. Ram Mohan Reddy Vs The Principal Secretary

R. Malleshwari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary, Home