IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DATED THIS THE 25"" DAY OF NovEME'ER<;SR'2~Q..:(} B BF ORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE :H.Nf'-NA;G4}3lUR.UI§AJ' & ASSTS.) T 'CORPORATION OF THE CITY E OF EELGAUM WBEIQGAUM. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. . RESPONDENT (By Smt. HEMALEKHA, K.S. ADV.) J\5H' I . S. ./ TI-IIS WRIT PETITION PILED U/A 226 & 227 OE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION No.22? DT.30.08.2003 AT A_NNEXU'RE-._GgAND w.P.Nos.7I6;&747g-73/g009 « BETWEEN: WIRELESS WTT INEO SERVICES L'i"D.,'v._ " HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ' " ST" ELOOR, S.I.R.PRIMUS, _ No.1, INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, E' _ V' 7"?" BLOCK, KORAMANGALA',"" -. BAN(3ALORE---560 095,')-_ __ . REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL vIIEA_DSC'-. " SHRIM.S.GAUTHAM 'PETITIONER (By Sri. VZJ4Ai$'AéI1SH,AI\ff£A:R_,:SR,COUI§E'SEL EOR M/S G'URII-RA'}"& ,A'sj:3;.TS--.I_ " ' _I_. ;S'I'ATE OE KARNATAKA .. "By._II'S_ CHIEF SECRETARY URBAN' DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 'I M;'S,_BUiLD'ING, BANGALORE. .l3IRF:CTOR DIRECTORATE OE MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, PODIUM BLOCK, A AMBEDKAR VIDBI, BANGALORE. 'CIIIEP OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL LIN AGSUGUR, GRAICI-IUR - 584 122. »~.__§'~-- fl. 4. THE SECRETARY GOKARNA VILLAGE PANCHAYATH KUMTA. 5. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN PANCHAYATH BEELAGI. iv ';';RESp§)N;3.1:3NTTS":« (By Sn I<.S.MALLIKARIUNAIA_E, OPEOR R--1v' ' R-3 SERVED " ._ Sri I-IEGDE, NEERALGI & PATIE, ADV-S.fEOR R-4 Sn D.S.HOSMATH3- ADv.,IEEORv--R45S.S) "- THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED ,U/A 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION % OF INI)1'A-.PRAYING 'DECLARE THAT THE MUNICI.P.A'LI-.AUTHORI_TI.ES/.ESQCAL BODIES HAVE NO AUTHORITYTQ111'£/1,/\1§E A;_FISC/XL 'DEMAND IN RESPECT OF TELECOMM U_N,I'cATIOINfAA.__VTOWERS INSTALLED BY THE PETITIONER AND E"Tc.., ._ E F F' 'w.P,I\fos.7*I.§3« 7.487-92_/_2009 (LB-RES) BETWEEN': . F E' I 'VI,AK1LSQU'«4'sRE 1 #56; ,ABv)5N'NERvG-HATTA ROAD F' 560 029. RE'PRES.EI~<siTED BY ITS LEGAL EEAD SEISHRINATH. .PETITIONER A (By Sr}: .\/IJAYA SHANKAR, SRCOUNSEL FOR . _ (M/S OURURAJ & ASSTS.) =-,__ JO E. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MSBUILDING, BANGALORE. 2. THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL"-« __ ADMINISTRATION, PODIUM BLOCK; AMBEDKAR VIDHI, _BANGALQRE."' I 3. CHIEF OFFICER MUNICIPAL COI\/IMITTEE_ I I KUMTA, NORTH _KAN'I$.?ADFAf3'» 4. CHIEF OFFICER H MUNICIPAL 'I ULLAL-A, D.AKSIgI_IN4A-.IKANI*JADA, I 5. MIINIICRIRAL C(3MMIS'sIO'NE'RRR CITY MUNICIPAL C.Q'U.,NCiL RAICHUR. ' - V' ...RESPONDENTS (By Sri KIISIA/1ALIIIKA.RI}UI§lAIAH, GP FOR R-I ; R. 2: TO 4'-AREISERVED "<.S:;1i._OSMAHE'sH...A_.DV., FOR R-5) I f _ WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED U/A 226 & 227 OF ._Cf)'_NS'Tl"f'.IJ'FlON OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE MUNICIPAL AUTHOR1TIEs/ LOCAL EODIES HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO MAKE A FISCAL DEMAND IN RESPECT OF TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS INSTALLED BY THE I ~RRE.TIT'IONER AND ETC. I\___:§"* W.P.N0s.7l64 & 7485-86/g009 (LB-RES) Q BETWEEN: VODAFONE ESSAR SOUTH LTD,' . PREsTIGE BLUE CHIP GROUND FLOOR, BLOCK I, No.9, HOSUR ROAD, ' ~ BANGALORE560 029. REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD -LEGAL , -- SHRI SANJIT NAGARKATTI.'._ V_..PETITIONER (By Sri. VIIAYA.ASHANVKIAR.}sR.--CO,UN'sE,L'FOR M/S GURURA5-.& AssTs'..~') AND: 1. ST:'A_TE,'OF E BY ITS PR1NICIPAL.,,sECRETARY M.S.BU"lLD£NQ, BANGALORE. - _ 2..'fiFH,FIv.DI,RECa1*OR .... .. - _ 3 'DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL "ADM1NI'STRATION, PODIUM BLOCK, '-'_,1AMBE.DK.AR' VIDHI, BANGALORE. 3.""--MUNICI'PAL COMMISSIONER CITY. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL ~ : ,_BIwIADRAvATII1. ...RE-SPONDENTS '.:(B3/sn I<;.s.IvIALLII<ARIIINAIAII, GP FOR R-I & 2 R~3 SERVED) c-'"" THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED U/A 226 &I227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLA'RE"'«.T'E{AT THE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES/' LOCAL BODIES. NO AUTHORITY TO MAKE A FISCAL DEMAND RESFE'cTf*O,F'I~, TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS 1N'STAI.,.LE:)'-.T3«y_ THE, FETITIONER AND ETC. ._ H _ W.P.Nos.716S & 7474-8'4/200_9,rIfivE;I{E;s) T B ETWEEN: I. RELIANCE COMMU1\IICATI"ION,_,LII\}HTED HAVING ITS OFFICE AT I:IO.I?§9/2,'=--f'« 1 "R" COM HOUSE, 4"' FLOOR', , HESSARGHATTA CROSS, 87*? ML'. 'I ' TUMKUREEIAD, PEENYA, 'j_ BANGAI.OREf:g_.56@ :05'/:.._ ., 3 REFR'ESENTE'T3; BY"IT'S 'LEGAL HEAD MT. GOU'T'AM.,B'QSE.._ _ -- 2. RELIANCE INFRATELLIMITED HAVING ITS OFF1r:E AT No.39/2, COM HOUSE, 4" FLOOR, "IIESSAROHATTIAI CROSS, ST" MILE, ~. I, *TU'IvIIARTIyI_EI~IT M.S.BUILDBIO,_V ' BANGALORE. ' ., ' 2. THE DIRECTOR . V' _ DIRECTORATE OE',MuAN_C.HAYAT"= HOSPETETA_LUIi:,;V,.,.,.' 1 'T 3 " RESPONDENTS (BY SR1. I<_;,S:MALEII<VARI'I;NAIAII, OREOR R1 R2, 5,6, 7,"&.,S3SERi'y'ED _ SR1' 'D,,C.IAOAD1SE,, 'A.Dv.._EOR--R_3 SRI B.K..MAN'JUNA"I*H,"ADV,., EOR R4) _ THESE WRIT I»ETITIONS ARE FILED U/A 2.26 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION, OF INDIA PRAYINO TO DECLARE THAT I " TEE I~,gIIINICII3AI;'IAUTHORITIESI LOCAL EODIES HAVE NO , 'A,EL'TIIORIT'Y._TO MAKE A FISCAL DEMAND IN RESPECT OF "'TELE.CQ1V£_1\k1.EJNICATION TOWERS INSTALLED BY THE ~.P'EfIiITIOI:IER,,'AND ETC. W.P.N0s.8133-8134/2009 (LB-RES) AIRCEI. LIMITED __?N'O\/EL TEAM BUILDING I # 10, 2"" FLOOR, I00 FEET ROAD, RING ROAD, B.T.M. I" STAGE, Ix?" 1.../' $0 BANGALORE «M 560 068. REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE B'US1NESS HEAD Mr. VINAY CHANDHOK. ..PETiTiONER (By Sri. VIJAYA SHANKAR, SRCOUNSEL FOR M/S GURURA} & ASSTS.) 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETART . _ URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEP'ARTMEN"f-V_ ' M.S.BUILDiNG, BANGALOREV' _ 2. THEDIRECTOR _ DIRECTORATE OF MUNTCTRAL . ADMINTSTRATION, VpODA:UM13LOcR,~»~ ~ AM BEDKAR TWDHQ; BANGALORE." 3. THE S_E.CRETAR;Y I V1L!,Af_}E, RANCHTAYATR GOPALA, TARIKERETALUK CHIKKMAGAL--UR--._DiSTRICT. " _ 4;-if i'THE.:sEcRETA'R--"*:« * V VI_LLACfE,PANC_HAYATH " _ "RAL.1N»G'A=NAHALL1NAGAMANGALA ._jTALU_i<:, MANDYA DESTRICT. ...REsPONDENTs (Ry snfR.s;'MALL1KAR3'UNA:AH, GP FOR R-1 'R--2i& 4 ARE SERVED A 'A sriAsHOI<_N.NAYAR, ADV., FOR R-3) THESE WRiT PET'ITiONS ARE FILED U/A 226 & 227 OF _fCONsT1TUT1ON OF INDEA PRAYENG TO DECLARE THAT THE MUNICEPAL AUTHORITIESI LOCAL BODiES HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO MAKE A FISCAL DEMAND IN RESPECT OF aw TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS INSTALLED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC. W.P.12368/;009(LB-RES) BETWEEN: XCEL TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED H A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER TIIER. COMPANY ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS} " REGISTERED OFFICE AT sUITE_I7I_ A 17"' PLOOR, ATLANTA BUILDING 209,NAR1MAN POINT, v MUMEAI _ 400 021 V_ " _ AND HAVING ITS REGIONALI_O'P*IfICEI"I ' I AT NO.3C-432, IST STAGE,"!1.T"" BLL{)C.'K, " I _ HBR LAYOUT? _BANGALORE-T560943 I " REPREsENTED'EV ITS. SC)'U"'1"H"ERN--."* A REGIONAL"HE__AD.,.'1,T'.CQL.AN.i'L-SOOD AGED' 'ABOUT ST AZRS A A ..PET1TIONER (BY COL.3HUPIND_ER.sIIIJ,GII, ADV.) AND; A A S A I If ':FHE.:COMMI:SS"I'GE<IER 1' 'C_IT"{_MLjN1C.IPAL COUNCIL '"CHAMARAJANAGAR--57 I 3 I 3 '2.._1"STA.TEC:"(;.II5 KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT URB"AVN'3~DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, " 'V'I.KASA SOUDHA * VEANGALOREASEG 001. (BY M/s. NAGARAIAPPA & AssTs. FOR RI ..RESPONDENTS SR1 KSMALLIKARJUNAIAH, HCGP FOR R2) r..___('\. (7. 12363-@099 '9 7163/2009 & 7487-92/2009 7164/2009 & 7485-7486/2009 7165/2009 & 7474-84/2009 8124-8132/2009: . ,."s133-s1-3472009 , NIL El E2 E3 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 E19' 1.. El NEL 18.2.2009 I8.2.2009 18.2.2009 26.'2..2009_9 ;. 04.232009 " _18.2.20r_)9'~ --..,,1"8._,2.2009 V 13.2.2009 ,,~--1~3..*2.2009 ._ 1,8..2.2oo9~-2., .
V .1 8…2.2’0~09′
.18..2′.–2009 ‘
_1’s..2′.’20C9~’
_ ‘l__8:2.2009
9 ’21″1’3;2:.2009
91822009
25.2.2009
29.01.2009
16.3.2009
04.03.2009
22.01.2009.
1 ,23%,’@3’9.t_ 5
, j “-4,3-1.,,’852.’- ._
1 30,45 3/-
1,532,024/–
1,130,630/«~
I ,29,268/~
l.,22,508/-
1,30,154/«~
2,3 ‘1 ,9§1/–
1,28,’748/–
50,000-
85,980/-
32,000/-
50,000/-
7,500/-
25,000/–
50,000/~
* -.,25.0Q0/–, j
= .. 25,008/.g
. 2,’39,244/’–=
“”._’89,~826/«
2′;’««._Peti.£i(;néfs contend that {hey have obtained license from the
Dajiarllnent Teiecommtlnicaiions, Ministry of Communications,
GQVe,1}h’1’1aehl of India under the lndian Telegraphic Act to provide
(,/7′”‘”NN
infrastructure support and assistance to teiecom service providers. terms
of the license, petitioners are establishing {ClBCOFFIITIUfliCa[iOHi~’fieiWQlfi(V.:’QITll_i.p
as a part of it, they are erecting and instaiiing base”tran–sfreceiyer ‘
stations/telecommunication towers aii over the State of’:K’arna–:.akaMand’
within the limits of various local bodies. Petitioners erecting; and
instaiiing the towers on private aufterll necessary
permission by way of lease or Since
the local bodies are creating in the matter of
erecting towers by certificate, iieense,
permission etc, of Karnataka for a
general direction to.’ Reacting to the request of the
petitioners and Karnataka issued a Circular on
2.352005 perrriitiiing iltheinylito instaii and erect the towers subject to the
foiiowing .c011d_itio11-S \ .,,.
(i) ensure safety of the structure and upon which
the toweryis erected and also the stability of the tower itself
Tliieponipanies shall be bound by any levy imposed by the local
J .
V (iiill companies shall be responsible for the safety of general public.
‘
fl
(iv) The companies shall abide by all the applicable Rules”.oand
Regulations.
3. Despite this general Circular dated
Government of Karnataka, the local bodies/respondyepntjs are’:issui1ig.d.eniand’
notices as stated above to pay license fee/’tax/charges/Cessyetc;
by this action of the respondents and localllboldies_,u aresbefore this
court. I I R l
4. Sri Vgjayshanltar, the petitioners
contend that under the Act licenses are
issued in l’avo_tir collecting necessary license fee.
Therefore, the to pay any other fee or license
charges toypgjthle local bodies/1’es__3ondents under the provisions the three
— KMQC Act and Panchayathraj Act. Under
the provisiions Acts, respondent ~ local bodies can only levy
property in.V.re’spect of land and éuildings and as such they are not
yentitliedrt to collect any fee/tax or cess from the petitioners for erecting
tel.econ1rniunicatio1i towers. The demand of respondent local bodies is
i therefore contrary to the provisions of the Acts referred to above. It is
‘-“-._..
‘xi
i7
16 !
contended that the power to levy tax under the provisions of the above three
Acts is traceable only to Article 246 of the Constitution of India’
entry 49 of Li.st–ll of VII schedule which deals with .
buildings. The said entry under Article 24v.6~do._notli
Legislature to impose tax on
contended that the impugned deinandintitices
Reliance is placed on the followmg decisvior.s§g_”– _ iii’
1) 2010(2) ..C::,ij:ai’at Law I§e_porter’~:l’?3O “\rt~.1″‘;51(2)
lnduspffowetesi Ltd, Vsf i.State_4_ofi.G’uja1’at”& another
ii) Nit ism sc¥;2’e3s»_f-
‘:VAhmeda’|3adaUrban«Development Authority Vs.
Sharadkurnar lf’a.yanti’i’c!irr;.ar Pasawalla and others.
‘Per conltra,_Vlle.arneci counsel for the respondent local bodies
c’ontend«.that_the telecornrnunieation towers erected and installed by the
petitione1’s,.are v.ii’thing;.the ambit of the word ‘Building’ as defined under the
provisions of” three Acts. Therefore, the respondent — local bodies are
competeiitpp to levy tax on the telecommunication towers erected and
_’i’nis’tall.f:dl within the limits of the local bodies. Respondents justify the levy
V A oftax under the impugned demand notices.
fl
6. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ
papers.
7. Article 265 of Constitution of India specifies thatino hick it
levied or collected except by authority of law?
Legislature of a State to enact law authorising the tpanchaya.tl1svi’to levy”and’
collect taxes, duties, tolls and fees. So Article’24t3;X enipowers the
State Legislature to enact the lawas-:th(:–?rising’th.eeMunicipalities to levy and
collect taxes, duties, tolls and ‘-,T’nt.e ;Go’vevrnrnfent” of Karnataka had
enacted the Munie._i:palii7tie_§; Act, l9’76 and the
Panchayathraj Act, l993.«.._ Under these. three Acts necessary provisions are
made for levy oftaxes, l’ees’;”cess”‘etc.’ Provisions are also made for issue of
licenses. V, rp1*0visi”on.stunder these three Acts do not specify authorising
the local under these three enactments to levy and collect the annual
perinissirons’ andflnstallation charges in respect of mobile tele~
t ‘V’comrntntipcatiovn.towers. Further the provision under these three Acts do not
~ «specify thatvthe cellular companies are required to obtain licenses and
«pe”r:nissio’n_s for providing telecorn service. In the absence of any such
-..a:uth0r%ity under these three enactments, the local bodies are barred from
a”*”‘”
levying and collecting any fee or installation charges on petitioners and
other cellular companies for providing telecom service.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner.s_l_’arVe’,i_ii’egister’ed_7..
infrastructure provider category–I. with the G_overntneiit..gofl_l’ndia–,..
of Coirirnunications and IT, Department of TelecomirztiiiicationsZ}underg
Section 4 of the Indian Telegraphic Act. G_overn’me_nt’of India has also
issued registration certificates nr.d.e’r the Indian’?Ifele’graphic Act, i885 to the
petitioners to operate (3.6llUl.ZlI’vgiTlOi_):iiC ‘ telepho’1i,el in Karnataka
Telecorn Circle servilce. is onl’the..sltrength of thecertificates issued under
the Tele.graphic°’A.ct;y theifiijpetiltiotners are”‘*erecting the mobile towers in
different parts of theCountryl’inctl_.uding the State of Karnataka for
providingtcellular”~rnobile]_ telephone services. Therefore, the petitioners
fnecd not…requ-ire to obtain*ar1’y license or permission from the respondent
local :V1QQuCii€$l’l’».E)OE’ l”gro*,{idi.ng and operating telegraph services. Even
it otherwise, the. proyisions under these three enactments though provide for
» ..fjv»’v”O__l3t’a.ining license or permission in respect of the areas specified in the
“schagduleflnentioned therein, they do not provide to obtain license or
‘:”p.erinilssion for providing and operating telegraph service. Therefore, the
petitioners who have already obtained the registration certificates under the
\
v-…__f-
l9
Telegraphic Act need not require to obtain any license or perniissiohfrom
the respondent» local bodies for providing and operating telegraph’ V
9. Section 94 of the Municipalities Act proyidersyfor of tax A
on building or vacant land or both situatedwit’hin}the» lkrlunicipalpiareai;
Section 2(3) of the Municipalities Act defines the sword as
“Building” includes a by()1.zthho1rseji stable,
latrine, urinal, shed, h;t_;’;”t~,t.,,-a[,’;i vieirahdayhgflxecl ipAlaVtf()rn2,
plinth, doorstep, staircase ();tier*’_» structure,
whether of or any other
material ivI1at,t’c>e1ier,_–bu:t a”o_es r1()t_’im;f{arle a”15ortai)le shelter.
Section—-l–~8.l__ t’oa_l92*o_f,the_lV£uiiicipalities Act deals with the power of
Munieipalityto regulate pconsitruction ‘of buildings.
l0._ . _ So alsop_Seeti,onA’l._i)3*~*of the KMC Act specifies the levy of tax
1-ion”o.i.1ildiin;gs ior vacant lhnd’s”or both situated within the city. Section 2(1-
ofbthe defines the word ‘Building’ as under:
‘ uilditz he! an’ e s. —
y S’ house, (,)lH’–h()ltS€, stable, prz’v3,=, shed, hut, wall,
, ire}”,<ar1dc:I1., fixer! platform, plinth, doorstep and any other such
.s'trueIure, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mad, ;i_1e;t_a"[ or
any other material whatsoever.
(underline is mine}
Further Section 295 to 321 of the KMC Act deals with the power to
regulate construction of buildings.
1}. Similarly, Section I99 of the :l%Z’a”rr1a.t.akai_: Act it
specifies levy of tax upon the buildingsand of”
defines the word ‘Building’ as under:
r«Bm’;dl-Hg» i,.1C[m-mg. as 5;”mh(;iise,ii”‘.:2itt–l2ciese’; suzble,
shop, stable, warehouse,ii’ iv'(1i’k{s!1()Vpi,::v slzecl, km’ or
other enclosure i’whetI1e:”” Vc2.i1_’=r,1_ clwelling or
otherwise .c:*i()tii;r)i:~.wizcI wall, fencing,
verandah, j2lcztfii’r*;:1,. pfir1tli”r,–ir;r)r;s’£ep CliI’I»!_.’1′ the like;
Sectiori-65 «speci.fie:iCthe’ vpoW.er..to regulate the erection of buildings.
Section 66. _specifiesgVithat’;.no’=_person shall without permission of Gram
I-iPar’1ehaya.tiiinstallwin any ‘premises any machinery or manufacturing plant,
driwi’ by V any”powei=si.et’c.. .
j 12. reiidingoi’ the provisions in the Municipalities Act and the KMC
iAicots.speci.fies the word ‘Building’ includes a structure made out of metal or
__other”§mate1’ial whatsoever. Further Section 66 of the Panchayathraj Act
V _ iispeci1’ies that no person shall install the machinery on any premises without
,//N”
21
permission of the Gram Panchayath. Petitioners in order to provide cellular
mobile telephone services are constructing metal towers. The _ereictioii. of
these metal towers cornprises installation of commun.ication”–[t’ower–s;
installation of shelter and a diesel generatorsetattached’Vtovijt; liivariablyilii
these transmission towers are erected over’*residenitiali,’rc’ornr1′:ereiial.Hand
industrial buildings, vacant lands etc.–.._Thereforie,,_they evreetijonwiofi these’
communication towers falls within thQ’C’i’€l;lilil.tli(J¥l of tlievword ‘Building’
specified under the provisions the, .i¥’tl’iree:’ referred to above.
Whenever a person e_re-its a_rnetfal tower within_the limits of the City, Town
or l\/i.unicipality=i’l Grain _are required to secure
permission/licensed local body. On completion of
erection of toweié, local body is entitled to levy tax on it.
v4’Therei’orB;i’:ithe>.petitioiie.rs: are erecting towers within the limits of the
.ireq.iiired to obtain perrnission/license and liable to pay
taxes*!:o’ the cont:’e–rned ‘local. body.
A 13. ii company by name M/s. Reliance lnfratel Limited
A the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short “BBMP’)
“life-r,Vp.eriniss_ion to establish a Base Transceiver Stations comprising erecting
metres communication tower, installation of a shelter and a diesel
‘\
aw
IN)
IQ
generator set at No.63 and 64. 1 Main, Upkar Layout, Whi–t’efgield,
Bangalore–66. The residents of Upkar Layout complained
opposing the erection of mobile tower in that area on thelggrouindiithat i’
would cause serious health hazard and rad.iatiion poillution in the ‘r_es{id’entia’i.
area. Consequently the BBMP referred thel’-matter to,.ICen’tral ‘Power’,
Research Institute for furnishing their ()plfii_(l)iiIi on he’alth”‘t:aZarlG_ aspects of
erecting a communication the reportiroin CPRI,
the BBMP issued an endorsementlnot._toli_pr-fiigceediviiwiiltitthe installation and
commissioning of ‘endtirsement issued by the
BBMP, iappiroached this court in
w.P.No.229:;_1/2Q09.V’l’i’i:yiri’h«g tlitirpentiency of w.P.2293 1./2009 the BBMP
secured a report from”i–thel’india.nl’lnstitute of Science specifying the
guidelines} in the matter of erecting a communication tower so as to limit
the exp~o,sut’e_Vof.electro magnetic fields radiated from mobile base stations.
TheiBBl\_/IP “tth5_threri.l’i5i-tiught to the notice of the Court in the said writ
petition the (fiioiverrirnent Order tiateti;20.2.i999, 12.11.2003 and 29.5.2002
i’speci.i’ying the guidelines in the matter of erecting communication towers
and the substance of these Government orders is as under:
b.
(1.
That they .S’llOl.£l(l obtain approval of Air Traff’t’c’ Controller,
Airport A.LtIl1()1″lI_\,-‘ of India, for exemption of Roof I:}f?’:}~3.t17l.?._I16l
from restriction, in case such exemption is r’eq_1t’iir.’ecl. K 5′
That they should inform the local ..a4t.ttltorit}?l “c’rolteeelrtteel 1′;-e.
Commissioner, Mtmicipalities,s Urbaij, _D’Uvelo”pnietit
Department, etc. along w.._i_ti’2.. _ the heces.sary arta’U
consent letter of the . build in-3g”().t»izrter’~b_e fo re ii’nstall(t:’tion.
That they are .s’olelly.e_’resprfhsibie may damage to the
lmilelittg. *
Thai tl’ie3?”– sl’i’oit’t_dbtttk[e. _.s*pe__ei€tl”;trecau.tions for fire safety and
Ivligl_1:ettit1g,Veta, ll
Grmttitzg ‘per”rnltss’i()*.=1_V to the Company to install electric
l ‘V e*t]Ltiph’zent;s;for’ telecom operation, the Department of Urban
_fil:)i.eaielopthet-tt, Mimicipttl Corporation shall ensure that the
vi sltttl l obtain clearances from the following agencies:
” No objection certificate from Electrical Inspectorate
Vii) No objection certificate from Directorate of Fire
1.
Services
iii) N0 0I2_jecn’0n cerrzficcire from owners as.s(icric1fEt2ri..s’ of
building.
14. In wp No.’2293l/2009 M/s.__.Reliance’it’liifratell’-ileiniited”=
submitted that they will comply with the requii’.eme_ntr~specifiéidrin “~!fCf;i,.l_I’i
submitted by the “Indian Institute lofiscience and.:’
Government Orders dated 2.0.2.1999—,– V1712.’ i..1_.20or« -.and_ii 29.5.2002.
Recording the undertaking gzivenlby _M./ls._ Limited, the said
W.P.2293i/2009 came .a;oDbe_ disgpiosledet’. ii I it i E
l5. The installation of’lc:omrn’unication tower either on vacant
land or on the rotéi ioii.bu’ildi11gi”c.Qrn..prises installation of communication
tower, installatienof shelte’1′.an_d.filielsel generator set attached to it. This
activity o.i_§:eree.ting a”co_1_ninuni’::ation tower involves the safety of building,
safety’ pe_voni1;;.jresi_ivding in the said building and in the neighborhood.
Further”i–t_inv’oives_ the”healtli of residents in the locality due to emission of
radiationi'”‘fro”in such towers. Therefore, the erection of mobile towers
».:i’ne’eessa1’–il.y involves the regulation by local body similar to the regulation
“of erectlion of a building. The local bodies are having an obligation under
“themprtivisions of three enactments referred t.o above to regulate the
J.
erection, installation and cominissioning oi’ the mobile towers. As such. the
petitioners are required to obtain permission/license for ereetion:’o-!’;~th’eh.
mobile towers.
16. The license obtained by the petitiioneifisi lithe
Indian Telegraphic Act is only in rnobilewi’
telephone services. The said license Telegraphic Act is
not for the purpose of erecting a held, erecting of
mobile tower comes” A word ‘Building’.
Whenever a buildizig the local body then the same
requires to be public safety and health.
Therefore, lieense: _.the petitioners under the Indian
Telegraphic_Act is”entirel_y’q–,di_tfereriit from the permission or license to be
obtained”ifron1._*-stAhei»r.local ibodies’ for erecting mobile towers. The license
obtained.ui’ide:r’«theilndian Telegraphic Act serves different purpose and the
Z”””license/permission” tube obtained under the local bodies serves a different
” ‘?}’vpu_rp<)se. "TH_hiere.fore, the petitioners are required to obtain the
p~ern1.issi.,onl'license from the respondent/local bodies for the purpose of
A the mobile towers.
d”
17. Once the petitioners erect a mobile tower within the limits of
respondent – local bodies by obtaining permission from themji
under the definition of the word ‘Building’. If a building islerected”
the limits of the respondent » local bodies then they are?.em.po_we1_ed tofllevyp
and collect taxes per the provisions of the’ienaetment§;V”~._:tnd. the”
Therefore, the petitioners who have erectedpliirnobile _la.=rel’libablle to payll
taxes to the respondent ~–loca:l’*~i.bt)diesllas-vipers’-._the provisions of the
enactments and the Rules.
18. It is brought.__to:.m’y no.tice” that Bruhatl Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike arnendteidiitltel. l?Z:t1lesl:i§elati’i’tg to assessment of buildings for the period
2008-09 to 20304 provision is made to levy taxes on
mobile towers at Rs.132,000/–i’per«annum per tower. It is not brought to my
fnotiee ;_stuc’n_ arnentlr–n–en’t to the taxation Rules in respect of
Act and Panchayat Raj Act. The respondent M
2 *.local bodies t_1nde.i_ ‘these three enactments are entitled to amend their
~ «i’.j’jV»-‘taxation Rules lproviding levy of taxes on mobile towers. Till the relevant
‘*Rulesrnbrel’}amended by the respondent authorities in accordance with law,
ll “‘–therespondent authorities are at liberty to adopt the Rules framed by Bruhat
ii”–Bangalore Mahanagara Palike in the matter of levying taxes on mobile
.r-.._
yd”
t_./l
towers. The impugned notices issued by the respondents are not btasepd on
any Rules. These demand notices based on resolutions the
respondent local bodies are arbitrary, unguided and not
Rules and as such they are liable to be quashed; is the
respondent W local bodies, under the three enactments, to ,l’eyy”and ‘col’ivect*..
taxes in accordance with law. By quashingthe impulgned’notic.es there will
be a void situation in the matter’ thellpetitioners who
have already erected and operating in the limits of
respondent — local necessary to balance
the interest of ‘thepetiltioners are liable to pay tax
of Rs.l2,O0(l;l5 tillappropriate Rules are framed for
levying taxes on~_hell.payrnent of Rs.l2,000/– per mobile
tower per._§annri.1n. is subject to the framing of Rules by the respondent —
local bodies and.the’s.arne is adjustable.
l9~.._ V_§;;ea1ined counsel. for the petitioners relying on a judgment of
it :v”.4Gui.aratVtHig.h’iCourt in Indus Towers Limited Vs. State of Gujarat reported
‘l'{£.'(‘:l’tl’};;cl’I’i}’E”‘l.4EiW Reporter Vol. 5E(2) 1730 contend that it is not permissible
..fo1a-~vtlie respondent W authorities to levy and collect permission fees and
installation charges in respect of mobile telecommunication towers. In
«J
lndus Towers Limited’s Case the Government resolution dated 1.l..’l2–.2008
issued by the Government of Gujarat and Urban Housing Dep«’:1_r’Lrrienut’ge~and.
the demand notices issued pursuant thereto providing for.levy_Vand_ireeovery_ it <
of annual pernnssion fees and
telecommunication towers was ehallenged.ii'lnri'the
impugned notice specifies that the passed
resolution demanding perniissionfee I. am in
agreement with the law laid dowAn..i.n:i. Case. On this
ground also the impu gneci:1ir:'n'oEiQe:'*21re _1i"able:_4to_Vb'e'quashed.
20. For the re2rsé5o_i1s state:14a’o.ov’e, theliollowing order:
1) V’V:1?l:[“pf3[llZlG11$ allowed.
ii) ‘ii ‘The impugned orders/demand notices as under are hereby
Annexures Dated Amount
19530/..2’0’o-5 G F 08.07.2005 2 ,40,000/-
L * 710.02/:t)09 &
* ss747j2-73/2009 NIL NIL NIL
7163/2009 &
7’487–92/ 2009
7164/2009 &
7485-7486/2009
7165/2009 &
7474–84/ 2009
8124-8 1 132,/2009
NIL
29
NIL
~.»18_._2.20_09 ” *
13-2′-2009 9
202.2009 _ ” ‘
04.2.2009’
Le 18.2;’200’9 ~
1-s3%.2.2009«…
~4..V1.s.=2.A2009
18.2.2009
. ”i~.8.2~.{2.OG9
18.2.2009
13.2-.2009
0 _:8.2.2009
18.2.2009
18.2.2009
18.2.2009
18.2.2009
25.2.2009
29.01.2009
16.3.2009
3.1
_
= .e1%4;3V%:1T1,$«52/.–.._
25,000/.-
“1 25,000.7-
2,39,244/–
89,826/–
1,30,-453/–
l.,32,024/–
l,30,630/-
l,29,268/–
1,22,508/–
1,30, 154/-
231,981/–
l,28,748/–
50,000-
85,980/–
32,000/–
50,000/–
7,500/-
0. El
1.1243168/200§i:§–.V. A
B2 04.03.2009 25 ,000/–
22.01.2009 50,000/–
iii) 1′ T1116 petiiioners are required to obtain license from the respondent
local bodies under the relevant enactments for erecting mobile
towers; .
$¥’$’°’-A
5..
30
iv) If the petitioners have all ready erected mobile towersfthen they
have to seek regularisation from the responden:t”i’or_:’a}._hoIdi_esi in
that event the respondent local. bodies have..to_:’eons.ider the
in accordance with law keepirig in..rn’1jnd’–_the_’public~,safety’ and–._ 4]
health.
V) The respondent local bodies at the Taxation
Rules providing or they may
adopt the ‘Bangalore Mahanagara
vi) vdpetditioners are iiable to pay a sum
._ annuiii per mobile tower as tax to the
and the same is subject to amendment of
‘V taxation.’ respondent local bodies and the same is a
1″ vvdC)ir-§,ei’ed=.accordingly.
sar-
Judge A 'L.R_$i'DKB