Bombay High Court
Indus Towers Limited Formally ... vs Grampanchayat Chikhalkol And Anr on 2 January, 2023
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, M. M. Sathaye
Yugandhara Patil
16-WP-15779-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 15779 OF 2022
Indus Towers Limited ... Petitioner
Versus
Grampanchayat Chikhalhol, Sangli & Ors. ... Respondents
YUGANDHARA
SHARAD
PATIL ******
Digitally signed by
YUGANDHARA
SHARAD PATIL Mr. Anil Anturkar Senior Advocate i/b Mr. S.B. Deshpande for the
Date: 2023.01.05
10:52:27 +0530
Petitioner.
None for the Respondents.
******
CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND
M.M.SATHAYE JJ.
DATE : 2nd JANUARY, 2023
P.C. :-
1. The Petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus against
respondent No. 1 not to obstruct the installation of mobile tower of
the petitioner as mentioned in prayer clause (b) of the petition and
writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned
resolution no. 7 passed by respondent no. 1 thereby cancelling no
objection certificate and has stopped work of mobile tower of the
petitioner.
2. Mr. Anturkar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner
1 /4
Yugandhara Patil
16-WP-15779-2022.doc
submitted that no objection certificate was already granted by
respondent no. 1 for installation of mobile tower. After commencing
the work in pursuance of the said no objection certificate, on the
complaint of residents, respondent no. 1 arbitrarily cancelled NOC
granted on 30th June 2022 by communication dated 2nd August 2022.
He relied upon judgments annexed to the petition at Exhibit G,H and
I.
3. Learned senior counsel also placed reliance on the judgment
delivered by Goa Bench of this Court on 14 th December 2022 in Writ
Petition No. 434 of 2022 in case of Indus Towers Limited Vs. The
State of Goa and Others and more particularly paragraph no. 10 and
submitted that, in similar facts Goa Bench of this Court has granted
interim relief.
4. Learned senior counsel on the instructions states that if the
petitioner is allowed to continue construction of the mobile tower,
petitioner would not commission said tower without further
permission from this Court. Statement is accepted.
2 /4
Yugandhara Patil
16-WP-15779-2022.doc
5. Issue notice upon respondents, returnable on 30 th January
2023. Humdast permitted.
3. In addition to the court notice, the petitioner is also permitted
to serve the respondents by private notice, by all permissible modes
of services available in law.
4. Respondents to file an affidavit-in-reply, within two weeks
from the date of service of the papers and proceedings with a copy to
be served upon the petitioner's advocate simultaneously.
5. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks from the date of
the service of the affidavit-in-reply upon the Petitioners.
6. The Petitioner is at liberty to carry on construction of mobile
tower on the property described in prayer clause (b) of the petition,
however, shall not commission said tower without obtaining further
permission from this Court It is made clear that this permission is
granted to the petitioner subject to further orders as may be passed
by this Court on the next date after hearing respondents. Petitioner
shall not claim any equity for carrying on construction work of
3 /4
Yugandhara Patil
16-WP-15779-2022.doc
mobile tower, in view of the permission granted by this Court, in
case interim order passed by this court is vacated by this Court after
hearing parties on the next date.
7. Petitioner to communicate this order to the respondent for
information and compliance. Parties to act on the authenticated copy
of this order.
[M.M.SATHAYE,J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]
4 /4
