S.M. Imran Hussain vs M/S. Ascend Telecom ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1452 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                    AND
    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI



               WRIT APPEAL No.1440 of 2018

JUDGMENT:      (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     The present writ appeal is arising out of an order

dated 16.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.25338 of 2018.

     The facts of the case reveal that the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner came up before this Court seeking a

writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Deputy

Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

(GHMC), in issuing intimation dated 30.06.2018 and also

challenging the action of interfering with the erection of

telecommunication infrastructure tower. It was stated

before the learned Single Judge that by virtue of

G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 05.08.2015, if no permission or

refusal is accorded within thirty days, the permission is

deemed to have been accorded and in those circumstances,

as the application was preferred by the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner on 13.04.2018 and no action was

taken by the GHMC within thirty days, the respondent

No.1/writ petitioner started constructing the mobile tower.

The learned Single Judge, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.96,

dated 05.08.2015, has quashed the impugned intimation

issued by the GHMC. The learned Single Judge while

disposing of the writ petition has also observed that there

is no requirement of obtaining no objection certificate from

the neighbours and the Government Order does not

provide for the same. The learned Single Judge has also

observed that in case any person is aggrieved in the

matter, like the appellant herein, the said person can very

well approach the concerned Telecom Enforcement and

Resource Monitoring (TERM) Cell of the Department of

Telecommunications. The learned Single Judge has also

given a liberty to the GHMC to take appropriate action in

case there are any deviations from the mandatory

requirements as per G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 05.08.2015.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned

Single Judge was justified in passing the aforesaid order.

A liberty has also been granted to the appellant to

approach the authorities and the GHMC has also been

granted a liberty to take appropriate action in the matter,

in case there are deviations from the mandatory

requirements for establishing a mobile tower. This Court

does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed

by the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

24.03.2022 vs