Disposed

M/s. Vodafone Essar South Limited, v. Koheda Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Executive Officer

Telangana HC18 Oct 2014WP/228/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the removal of a telecommunication tower without notice. The court dismissed the petition on merits but directed the Gram Panchayat to consider the petitioner's explanation before proceeding and continued the interim stay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st Respondent to consider the petitioner's explanation and pass appropriate orders; interim stay continues.

M/s. Vodafone Essar South Limited, Vs Koheda Gram… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

¶2

W.P.No.228 of 2009

¶3

Between:

¶4

M/s. Vodafone Essar South Limited, Rep. by its Circle Head, Mr. Ambekar Siva Prakash Rao

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

AND

¶7

1. Koheda Gram Panchayat, rep. by its Executive Officer, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and others.

¶8

RESPONDENTS

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶11

“….. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the notice to the owner of the premises, without issuing any notice whatsoever to the petitioner company and action of the respondents in straightaway removing the compound wall and attempting to remove the tower without considering the representation submitted on behalf of the petitioner company and without passing any order, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of well settled principles of natural justice…”

¶12

2. Heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent, learned G.P. for Panchayat Raj for respondents 2 to 4 and Sri K.K. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, apart from perusing the material available on record.

¶13

3. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of Telecommunication services under the licence from the Department of Telecommunications Company of India. According to the petitioner, it erected various towers and pole mounted Antennas at different places, in order to enable it to provide various telecommunication services to his customers. The Executive Officer of the 1^st respondent-Gram Panchayat issued notice dated 27.12.2008, asking for removal of cell tower erected by the petitioner in the premises belonging to one Smt. Karre Narsamma. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 30.12.2008 to the Panchayat Secretary, Koheda Gram Panchayat, the 1^st respondent herein, stating

¶14

that it did not violate any law or any Government Order, as such, the direction for removal is not sustainable. Complaining violation of principles of natural justice and contending that the impugned action is arbitrary and illegal, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶15

4. This Court on 12.01.2009 granted stay of removal of the cell tower of the petitioner. The said interim order is still subsisting. Even though a number of contentions have been raised by the counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, this Court does not propose to go into the same since the explanation offered by the petitioner is pending consideration before the 1^st respondent-Gram Panchayat and this Court deems it apt to direct the 1^st respondent-Gram Panchayat to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner on 30.12.2008 before proceeding futher.

¶16

5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent-Gram Panchayat to consider the explanation dated 30.12.2008 said to have been submitted by the petitioner to the 1^st respondent-Gram Panchayat and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such exercise is competed, the interim order granted on 12.01.2009 shall continue to operate. No order as to costs.

¶17

_______________________ JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.

¶18

18^th October, 2014 Js.

M/s. Vodafone Essar South Limited, v. Koheda Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Vodafone Essar South Limited, v. Koheda Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Executive Officer

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

K.Rangappa, S/o. Nagappa, Vs The Government of Telangana

J. Sriramulu, Vs the Government of Telangana

Bandlamudi Narasimha Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by its Secretary

Pondur Mandal Mahila Mutually Aided Cooperative Vs The Project Director

Regalla Vijeta Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Perikala Lalithamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its