High Court Karnataka High Court

Bharti Airtel Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner on 24 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Bharti Airtel Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner on 24 June, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
-1-

IN THE HIGH comrr or KARNATAKA.  

DATEE) THIS THE 24th DA*{"o1«3     

BEFORE  

TI-IE H()N'BLE MR.JUSTICi%§V:'i2AMv.MQHA§I i®IjDY
'WRIT PE'1'I'I'i():N-.No._472'VA§f':.2§§08. (LERES)

BETWEEN _

BHARTI AIRTEL I;..1_1v;.ITE.D__   ._ 
NO 55, f)IV"YA.;S}_iREE T4O--\1sj:ER«s.i-- 1
BANNERc;H'm"1'A~1.:§4AIN_Roz=.B,.___ 
I3ANG,:4aL0RE.29   
REPRE.SE--N'rED'wBY IfTS'AU*£*H£)R1sEI3
SIGNATORY, V *   

MR PRAsi~IAN'I'H'=1\:   .. 

 PEFITIONER

 "  _ (Eg§':'r»a,{s LEX NE *LIs,=Ar>\q

 TH'E~.u£')EPUTY COMMISSIONER
~.CEjE_I'I'RADURGA

~  THE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

' HOSADURGA,
CHITRADURGA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF' OFFICER
 RESPONDENTS

{By Sri RAMESI-I BANNAPPANAVAR, AGA )

-2-

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER AI~>:.I_’IcL-:~;s ;_
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA~PI§AYINo To –. ”
QUASH ANNEX.C., THE DIREc’1?Io’Ns. IS.SU_EI_)”V§_3Y -‘.I’E-i§’.*..
FIRST RESPONDENT DT. 20.11.2907:-PASSEIT}…IIw¥ ;sIo.._I,r~:I>.’

(3R.314/ 07-03.

THIS ‘WRIT PETITION ooI{m~:o on I:*oRl:iI>i2EI;1MINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, *I*:~i:’«;_ CC}IJR’i”A3\:ii!-\fiE.TI-IE FOLLOWING:

The? a«_;–3jlce.os’ee”‘l.i3_1tI.der the Telegraph Act
1885, layout on a
p1ivate”gprei1I.i’9=.eS’ coiisent of its owner, was visited

with a Iiotice. AnnexuIe–C of the Deputy

Coi1imi§Isiovnerici.»111ii_1g«.apon him to remove and relocate the

‘ flower iigga other than its present location, and followed

. Aynnexures-E and F, of the Municipal Council,

the petitioner to comply with the directions of

., ‘i1ie4_Devvpluty Commissioner. Hence, this writ petition.

2. In the first place, Section 256 of T he Karnataka
Municipalities Act, 1964, for short ‘Act’, does not empower

the Deyuty Commissioner of the District to exercise the

M

-3-

power of a Municipal Commissioner. Be that as it

petitioner has been issued with two notices V.

F’ of the Municipal Council, which i_s..no_t mspdnaéa it ” 2

petitioner.

3. In the ci1*cumstani:¢;§;i.the petitiofirr ‘is V

to submit his exp1anatj:511V_to tI:1é'”no.ticos-yvhicftii the”Muni:ipal
Counci} is bound to conéitiér and pass orders

thereon in acooxionce sntrhitime the Municipal

tiiéiitixplanation ofliered by the

petitioner, no cocrcifm-_iactiGn.ca11 be taken.

; ‘ Saibjeoit ‘toitlie aiaotie observation, the writ petition is,

i “I’§jECiIf:(i1H’. iiii it i

Sd/—

Iudge