Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/352/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 352 of 2008
==========================================
VODAFONE
ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED THRO' V SRINIVAS - Petitioner(s)
Versus
JUNAGADH
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THRO' COMMISSIONER & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
AMIT M PANCHAL for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR HS
MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s) : 2,
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
and
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date
: 09/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI)
By
this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following
substantive reliefs:
?S[10] In
the premises aforesaid, the petitioner, therefore, prays that this
Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ
in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order quashing and setting aside the action of the
respondents in –
[A] Threatening
to demolish the Base Trans Receiver Station Installations (BTS ?
Tower ? Antennae) of the petitioner and seeking to take coercive
steps to recover the amount of Rs.45,56,350/-, by sealing the
aforesaid structures or by issuing attachment warrants in pursuance
of notices dated 10.12.2007, 1.12.2007 and 22.10.2007;
[B] Quash
and set aside the letters at Annexure-F, Annexure-H and Annexure-I
dated 22.10.2007, 1.12.2007 and 10.12.2007 in so far as charging
permission fee and administrative penalty charges are concerned;
[C] Quash
and set aside Resolution No.63 dated 30.8.2007 passed by the General
Board of the Junagadh Municipal Corporation, Junagadh in so far as
charging permission fee and administrative penalty charges are
concerned and be further pleased to declare that the said action is
contrary to and opposed to the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Honourable Court in the cases of Shardulkumar Jayantkumar Pasawala &
others Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority and another,
reported in 1984(1) GLR 401 and which has been approved by the
Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case of Ahmedabad Urban
Development Authority Vs. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawala &
others, reported in 1993(1) GLR 655??
It
is an accepted position that the validity of the impugned Resolution
was subject matter of challenge in the case of Reliance
Communications Limited v. Junagadh Municipal Corporation, wherein
this Court vide an order of even date has quashed and set aside the
said Resolution insofar as it provides for determination of
permission fees, annual rent and administrative penalty. Hence, it
is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail.
For
the reasons stated in the order of even date made in Special Civil
Application No.531 of 2008 in the case of Reliance Communications
Limited v. Junagadh Municipal Corporation, this petition is allowed.
The impugned Resolution dated 30th August, 2007 passed
by the respondent No.1 insofar as it provides for determination of
permission fees and administrative penalty, is hereby quashed and
set aside. Consequently, the impugned demand notices mentioned
hereinabove as well as attachment warrants issued pursuant thereto
are also quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute, accordingly,
with no order as to costs.
[D.A.MEHTA,
J.]
[HARSHA
DEVANI, J.]
parmar*
Top