{"id":262119,"date":"2010-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010"},"modified":"2015-03-24T08:01:06","modified_gmt":"2015-03-24T02:31:06","slug":"hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Hutchison Essar South Ltd vs Corporation Of The City Of Belgaum on 25 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Hutchison Essar South Ltd vs Corporation Of The City Of Belgaum on 25 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: H N Das<\/div>\n
 \n\n \n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT \n\nDATED THIS THE 25\"\" DAY OF NovEME'ER<;SR'2~Q..:(}  \n\nB BF ORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE :H.Nf'-NA;G4}3lUR.UI\u00a7AJ' & ASSTS.)\n\nT  'CORPORATION OF THE CITY\n E OF EELGAUM\n  WBEIQGAUM.\n  REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. . RESPONDENT\n\n(By Smt. HEMALEKHA, K.S. ADV.)\n\nJ\\5H'\nI .\n\nS. .\/\n\n\n\nTI-IIS WRIT PETITION PILED U\/A 226 & 227 OE\nCONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE\nRESOLUTION No.22? DT.30.08.2003 AT A_NNEXU'RE-._GgAND\n\nw.P.Nos.7I6;&747g-73\/g009   \u00ab\nBETWEEN:   \n\nWIRELESS WTT INEO SERVICES L'i"D.,'v._ \"\nHAVING ITS OFFICE AT '  \"\nST\" ELOOR, S.I.R.PRIMUS, _\n\nNo<\/a>.1, INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, E' _ V'\n\n7\"?\" BLOCK, KORAMANGALA',\"\" -.  \nBAN(3ALORE---560 095,')-_ __  .  \nREPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL vIIEA_DSC'-.  \" \nSHRIM.S.GAUTHAM     'PETITIONER\n\n(By Sri. VZJ4Ai$'A\u00e9I1SH,AI\\ff\u00a3A:R_,:SR,COUI\u00a7E'SEL EOR\nM\/S G'URII-RA'}\"& ,A'sj:3;.TS--.I_  \" '\n\n_I_. ;S'I'ATE OE KARNATAKA\n\n.. \"By._II'S_ CHIEF SECRETARY\n\nURBAN' DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT\n'I M;'S,_BUiLD'ING, BANGALORE.\n\n .l3IRF:CTOR\n DIRECTORATE OE MUNICIPAL\nADMINISTRATION, PODIUM BLOCK,\n\n A AMBEDKAR VIDBI, BANGALORE.\n\n 'CIIIEP OFFICER\n\nTOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL\nLIN AGSUGUR,\nGRAICI-IUR - 584 122.\n\n\u00bb~.__\u00a7'~--\n\n\ufb02.\n\n\n\n4. THE SECRETARY\nGOKARNA VILLAGE PANCHAYATH\nKUMTA.\n\n5. THE CHIEF OFFICER\nTOWN PANCHAYATH\n\nBEELAGI.   iv ';';RESp\u00a7)N;3.1:3NTTS\":\u00ab\n\n(By Sn I<.S.MALLIKARIUNAIA_E, OPEOR R--1v' '\nR-3 SERVED  " ._   \nSri I-IEGDE, NEERALGI & PATIE, ADV-S.fEOR R-4\nSn D.S.HOSMATH3- ADv.,IEEORv--R45S.S) "- \n\nTHESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED ,U\/A 226 & 227 OF\nCONSTITUTION % OF INI)1'A-.PRAYING  'DECLARE THAT\nTHE MUNICI.P.A'LI-.AUTHORI_TI.ES\/.ESQCAL BODIES HAVE NO\nAUTHORITYTQ111'\u00a3\/1,\/\\1\u00a7E A;_FISC\/XL 'DEMAND IN RESPECT OF\nTELECOMM U_N,I'cATIOINfAA.__VTOWERS  INSTALLED BY THE\n\nPETITIONER AND E"Tc..,  ._\nE F F' 'w.P,I\\fos.7*I.\u00a73\u00ab  7.487-92_\/_2009 (LB-RES)\n\nBETWEEN': . F  E' \n\n  \n\n  I 'VI,AK1LSQU'\u00ab4'sRE\n 1 #56; ,ABv)5N'NERvG-HATTA ROAD\nF'  560 029.\n\nRE'PRES.EI~<siTED BY ITS LEGAL EEAD\nSEISHRINATH. .PETITIONER\n\n A (By Sr}: .\\\/IJAYA SHANKAR, SRCOUNSEL FOR\n. _ (M\/S OURURAJ & ASSTS.)\n\n=-,__\n\nJO\n\n\n\nE. STATE OF KARNATAKA\nBY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY\nURBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT\nMSBUILDING, BANGALORE.\n\n2. THE DIRECTOR \nDIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL"-\u00ab __\nADMINISTRATION, PODIUM BLOCK;\n\nAMBEDKAR VIDHI, _BANGALQRE."' I\n\n3. CHIEF OFFICER   \nMUNICIPAL COI\\\/IMITTEE_ I I \nKUMTA, NORTH _KAN'I$.?ADFAf3'\u00bb \n\n4. CHIEF OFFICER H\n\nMUNICIPAL     'I \nULLAL-A, D.AKSIgI_IN4A-.IKANI*JADA, I\n\n5. MIINIICRIRAL C(3MMIS'sIO'NE'RRR \nCITY MUNICIPAL C.Q'U.,NCiL\n\nRAICHUR. ' -  V' ...RESPONDENTS\n(By Sri KIISIA\/1ALIIIKA.RI}UI\u00a7lAIAH, GP FOR R-I\n; R. 2: TO 4'-AREISERVED\n"<.S:;1i._OSMAHE'sH...A_.DV., FOR R-5)\n\n I f  _ WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED U\/A 226 & 227 OF\n ._Cf)'_NS'Tl"f'.IJ'FlON OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT\nTHE MUNICIPAL AUTHOR1TIEs\/ LOCAL EODIES HAVE NO\n\nAUTHORITY TO MAKE A FISCAL DEMAND IN RESPECT OF\nTELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS INSTALLED BY THE\n\nI   ~RRE.TIT'IONER AND ETC.\n\nI\\___:\u00a7"*\n\n\n\nW.P.N0s.7l64 & 7485-86\/g009 (LB-RES)  Q\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nVODAFONE ESSAR SOUTH LTD,'  .\n\nPREsTIGE BLUE CHIP  \n\nGROUND FLOOR, BLOCK I,\n\nNo.9, HOSUR ROAD, ' ~\n\nBANGALORE560 029.\n\nREPRESENTED BY ITS\n\nHEAD -LEGAL ,   --     \n\nSHRI SANJIT NAGARKATTI.'._   V_..PETITIONER\n\n(By Sri. VIIAYA.ASHANVKIAR.}sR.--CO,UN'sE,L'FOR\n\nM\/S GURURA5-.& AssTs'..~')   \n\nAND:\n\n1. ST:'A_TE,'OF  E\nBY ITS PR1NICIPAL.,,sECRETARY\nM.S.BU"lLD\u00a3NQ, BANGALORE.\n\n -  _ 2..'fiFH,FIv.DI,RECa1*OR .... .. -\n\n_ 3 'DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL\n"ADM1NI'STRATION, PODIUM BLOCK,\n\n'-'_,1AMBE.DK.AR' VIDHI, BANGALORE.\n\n3.""--MUNICI'PAL COMMISSIONER\nCITY. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL\n\n ~ : ,_BIwIADRAvATII1. ...RE-SPONDENTS\n\n'.:(B3\/sn I<;.s.IvIALLII<ARIIINAIAII, GP FOR R-I & 2\n\nR~3 SERVED)\n\nc-'""\n\n\n\nTHESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED U\/A 226 &I227 OF\nCONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLA'RE"'\u00ab.T'E{AT\nTHE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES\/' LOCAL BODIES.  NO\n\nAUTHORITY TO MAKE A FISCAL DEMAND  RESFE'cTf*O,F'I~,\nTELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS 1N'STAI.,.LE:)'-.T3\u00aby_ THE, \n\nFETITIONER AND ETC.   ._ H   _\nW.P.Nos.716S & 7474-8'4\/200_9,rIfivE;I{E;s)   T\n\nB ETWEEN:\n\nI. RELIANCE COMMU1\\IICATI"ION,_,LII\\}HTED \nHAVING ITS OFFICE AT I:IO.I?\u00a79\/2,'=--f'\u00ab 1\n"R" COM HOUSE, 4"' FLOOR',    , \nHESSARGHATTA CROSS, 87*? ML'.  'I '\nTUMKUREEIAD, PEENYA,   'j_ \nBANGAI.OREf:g_.56@ :05'\/:.._ ., 3  \n\nREFR'ESENTE'T3; BY"IT'S 'LEGAL HEAD\nMT. GOU'T'AM.,B'QSE.._  _ --\n\n2. RELIANCE INFRATELLIMITED\nHAVING ITS OFF1r:E AT No.39\/2,\n COM HOUSE, 4" FLOOR,\n "IIESSAROHATTIAI CROSS, ST" MILE,\n\n ~. I, *TU'IvIIARTIyI_EI~IT\nM.S.BUILDBIO,_V   '\nBANGALORE. ' ., '\n\n2. THE DIRECTOR  . V' _\n\nDIRECTORATE OE',MuAN_C.HAYAT\"=\nHOSPETETA_LUIi:,;V,.,.,.'   \n\n 1  'T 3   \" RESPONDENTS\n\n(BY SR1. I<_;,S:MALEII<VARI'I;NAIAII, OREOR R1\nR2, 5,6, 7,"&.,S3SERi'y'ED  _ \n\nSR1' 'D,,C.IAOAD1SE,, 'A.Dv.._EOR--R_3\n\nSRI B.K..MAN'JUNA"I*H,"ADV,., EOR R4)\n\n_   THESE WRIT I\u00bbETITIONS ARE FILED U\/A 2.26 & 227 OF\nCONSTITUTION, OF INDIA PRAYINO TO DECLARE THAT\n\nI "  TEE I~,gIIINICII3AI;'IAUTHORITIESI LOCAL EODIES HAVE NO\n, 'A,EL'TIIORIT'Y._TO MAKE A FISCAL DEMAND IN RESPECT OF\n "'TELE.CQ1V\u00a3_1\\k1.EJNICATION TOWERS INSTALLED BY THE\n\n~.P'EfIiITIOI:IER,,'AND ETC.\n\nW.P.N0s.8133-8134\/2009 (LB-RES)\n\n AIRCEI. LIMITED\n__?N'O\\\/EL TEAM BUILDING\nI # 10, 2"" FLOOR, I00 FEET ROAD,\n\nRING ROAD, B.T.M. I" STAGE,\n\nIx?"\n\n1...\/'\n\n\n\n$0\n\nBANGALORE \u00abM 560 068.\nREPRESENTED BY CIRCLE B'US1NESS\nHEAD Mr. VINAY CHANDHOK. ..PETiTiONER\n\n(By Sri. VIJAYA SHANKAR, SRCOUNSEL FOR\nM\/S GURURA} & ASSTS.)\n\n1. STATE OF KARNATAKA\nBY ITS CHIEF SECRETART .   _\nURBAN DEVELOPMENT DEP'ARTMEN"f-V_  ' \nM.S.BUILDiNG, BANGALOREV' _  \n\n2. THEDIRECTOR  _   \nDIRECTORATE OF MUNTCTRAL   .\nADMINTSTRATION, VpODA:UM13LOcR,~\u00bb~ ~ \nAM BEDKAR TWDHQ; BANGALORE." \n\n3. THE S_E.CRETAR;Y  I\nV1L!,Af_}E, RANCHTAYATR\nGOPALA, TARIKERETALUK\nCHIKKMAGAL--UR--._DiSTRICT.\n\n "  _ 4;-if i'THE.:sEcRETA'R--"*:\u00ab *\nV  VI_LLACfE,PANC_HAYATH\n" _ "RAL.1N\u00bbG'A=NAHALL1NAGAMANGALA\n\n ._jTALU_i<:, MANDYA DESTRICT. ...REsPONDENTs\n\n(Ry snfR.s;'MALL1KAR3'UNA:AH, GP FOR R-1\n'R--2i& 4 ARE SERVED\n\nA 'A  sriAsHOI<_N.NAYAR, ADV., FOR R-3)\n\nTHESE WRiT PET'ITiONS ARE FILED U\/A 226 & 227 OF\n\n_fCONsT1TUT1ON OF INDEA PRAYENG TO DECLARE THAT\nTHE MUNICEPAL AUTHORITIESI LOCAL BODiES HAVE NO\n\nAUTHORITY TO MAKE A FISCAL DEMAND IN RESPECT OF\n\naw\n\n\n\nTELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS INSTALLED BY THE\nPETITIONER AND ETC. \n\nW.P.12368\/;009(LB-RES)\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nXCEL TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED H\nA COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER TIIER. \nCOMPANY ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS} "\nREGISTERED OFFICE AT sUITE_I7I_ A\n\n17"' PLOOR, ATLANTA BUILDING\n209,NAR1MAN POINT,   v\nMUMEAI _ 400 021 V_   "  _ \nAND HAVING ITS REGIONALI_O'P*IfICEI"I  '  I\nAT NO.3C-432, IST STAGE,"!1.T"" BLL{)C.'K, " I  _ \nHBR LAYOUT? _BANGALORE-T560943 I  "\nREPREsENTED'EV ITS. SC)'U"'1"H"ERN--."* A \nREGIONAL"HE__AD.,.'1,T'.CQL.AN.i'L-SOOD\n\nAGED' 'ABOUT ST  AZRS\n\n    A A ..PET1TIONER\n(BY COL.3HUPIND_ER.sIIIJ,GII, ADV.)\nAND; A A S A\n\nI If ':FHE.:COMMI:SS"I'GE<IER\n\n 1' 'C_IT"{_MLjN1C.IPAL COUNCIL\n  '"CHAMARAJANAGAR--57 I 3 I 3\n\n'2.._1"STA.TEC:"(;.II5 KARNATAKA\n\nREP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT\nURB"AVN'3~DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,\n\n " 'V'I.KASA SOUDHA\n*  VEANGALOREASEG 001.\n\n (BY M\/s. NAGARAIAPPA & AssTs. FOR RI\n\n..RESPONDENTS\n\nSR1 KSMALLIKARJUNAIAH, HCGP FOR R2)\n\nr..___('\\.\n\n(7.\n\n\n\n    12363-@099  '9\n\n7163\/2009 &\n7487-92\/2009\n\n7164\/2009 &\n7485-7486\/2009\n\n7165\/2009 &\n7474-84\/2009\n\n8124-8132\/2009: .\n\n,."s133-s1-3472009  ,\n\nNIL\n\nEl\nE2\nE3\n\nG1\nG2\nG3\nG4\nG5\nG6\nG7\nG8\nG9\n\nE19' 1.. \n\nEl \n\nNEL\n\n18.2.2009\nI8.2.2009\n18.2.2009\n\n26.'2..2009_9 ;.\n\n04.232009 "\n\n _18.2.20r_)9'~\n--..,,1"8._,2.2009  V\n\n13.2.2009\n\n,,~--1~3..*2.2009\n._ 1,8..2.2oo9~-2.,\n  .\n<\/pre>\n
V .1 8…2.2’0~09′
\n.18..2′.–2009 ‘
\n _1’s..2′.’20C9~’
\n _ ‘l__8:2.2009<\/p>\n
9 ’21″1’3;2:.2009<\/p>\n
91822009<\/p>\n
25.2.2009<\/p>\n
29.01.2009<\/p>\n
16.3.2009<\/p>\n
04.03.2009<\/p>\n
22.01.2009.\n<\/p>\n
\n
  1 ,23%,’@3’9.t_ 5
\n , j “-4,3-1.,,’852.’- ._ <\/p>\n
1 30,45 3\/-\n<\/p>\n
    1,532,024\/–\n<\/p>\n
1,130,630\/\u00ab~
\nI ,29,268\/~
\nl.,22,508\/-\n<\/p>\n
1,30,154\/\u00ab~
\n2,3 ‘1 ,9\u00a71\/–\n<\/p>\n
1,28,’748\/–\n<\/p>\n
50,000-\n<\/p>\n
85,980\/-\n<\/p>\n
32,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
50,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
7,500\/-\n<\/p>\n
25,000\/–\n<\/p>\n
50,000\/~<\/p>\n
*  -.,25.0Q0\/–, j<\/p>\n
=  .. 25,008\/.g
\n . 2,’39,244\/’–=<\/p>\n
“”._’89,~826\/\u00ab<\/p>\n
2′;’\u00ab\u00ab._Peti.\u00a3i(;n\u00e9fs contend that {hey have obtained license from the<\/p>\n
Dajiarllnent  Teiecommtlnicaiions, Ministry of Communications,<\/p>\n
GQVe,1}h’1’1aehl of India under the lndian Telegraphic Act to provide<\/p>\n
(,\/7′”‘”NN<\/p>\n
infrastructure support and assistance to teiecom service providers. terms<\/p>\n
of the license, petitioners are establishing {ClBCOFFIITIU\ufb02iCa[iOHi~’\ufb01eiWQlfi(V.:’QITll_i.p<\/p>\n
as a part of it, they are erecting and instaiiing base”tran–sfreceiyer ‘<\/p>\n
stations\/telecommunication towers aii over the State of’:K’arna–:.akaMand’<\/p>\n
within the limits of various local bodies. Petitioners erecting; and <\/p>\n
instaiiing the towers on private  aufterll necessary
\npermission by way of lease or   Since
\nthe local bodies are creating   in the matter of
\nerecting towers by   certificate, iieense,
\npermission etc,   of Karnataka for a
\ngeneral direction to.’ Reacting to the request of the
\npetitioners and Karnataka issued a Circular on
\n2.352005 perrriitiiing iltheinylito instaii and erect the towers subject to the<\/p>\n
foiiowing .c011d_itio11-S  \\ .,,.\n<\/p>\n
 (i)  ensure safety of the structure and upon which<\/p>\n
the toweryis erected and also the stability of the tower itself<\/p>\n
Tliieponipanies shall be bound by any levy imposed by the local<\/p>\n
J .\n<\/p>\n
 V  (iiill  companies shall be responsible for the safety of general public.<\/p>\n
 ‘
\nfl<\/p>\n
(iv) The companies shall abide by all the applicable Rules”.oand<\/p>\n
Regulations.\n<\/p>\n
3. Despite this general Circular dated  <\/p>\n
Government of Karnataka, the local bodies\/respondyepntjs are’:issui1ig.d.eniand’<\/p>\n
notices as stated above to pay license fee\/’tax\/charges\/Cessyetc; <\/p>\n
by this action of the respondents and localllboldies_,u  aresbefore this
\ncourt. I I R l<\/p>\n
4. Sri Vgjayshanltar,  the petitioners
\ncontend that under the    Act licenses are
\nissued in l’avo_tir  collecting necessary license fee.
\nTherefore, the  to pay any other fee or license
\ncharges toypgjthle local bodies\/1’es__3ondents under the provisions the three\n<\/p>\n
 —   KMQC Act and Panchayathraj Act. Under<\/p>\n
the provisiions Acts, respondent ~ local bodies can only levy<\/p>\n
 property  in.V.re’spect of land and \u00e9uildings and as such they are not<\/p>\n
yentitliedrt to collect any fee\/tax or cess from the petitioners for erecting<\/p>\n
 tel.econ1rniunicatio1i towers. The demand of respondent local bodies is<\/p>\n
 i  therefore contrary to the provisions of the Acts referred to above. It is<\/p>\n
‘-“-._..\n<\/p>\n
‘xi
\ni7<\/p>\n
16 !<\/p>\n
contended that the power to levy tax under the provisions of the above three
\nActs is traceable only to Article 246<\/a> of the Constitution of India’
\nentry 49 of Li.st–ll of VII schedule which deals with  .
\nbuildings. The said entry under Article 24v.6~<\/a>do._notli
\nLegislature to impose tax on <\/p>\n
contended that the impugned deinandintitices <\/p>\n
Reliance is placed on the followmg decisvior.s\u00a7g_”– _ iii’ <\/p>\n
1) 2010(2) ..C::,ij:ai’at Law I\u00a7e_porter’~:l’?3O “\\rt~.1″‘;51(2)
\nlnduspffowetesi Ltd, Vsf i.State_4_ofi.G’uja1’at”& another<\/p>\n
ii) Nit ism sc\u00a5;2’e3s\u00bb_f-\n<\/p>\n
‘:VAhmeda’|3adaUrban\u00abDevelopment Authority Vs.
\nSharadkurnar lf’a.yanti’i’c!irr;.ar Pasawalla and others.<\/p>\n
 ‘Per conltra,_Vlle.arneci counsel for the respondent local bodies<\/p>\n
c’ontend\u00ab.that_the telecornrnunieation towers erected and installed by the<\/p>\n
petitione1’s,.are v.ii’thing;.the ambit of the word ‘Building’ as defined under the<\/p>\n
 provisions of” three Acts. Therefore, the respondent — local bodies are<\/p>\n
 competeiitpp to levy tax on the telecommunication towers erected and<\/p>\n
 _’i’nis’tall.f:dl within the limits of the local bodies. Respondents justify the levy<\/p>\n
V  A oftax under the impugned demand notices.<\/p>\n
\ufb02<\/p>\n
6. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ<\/p>\n
papers.\n<\/p>\n
7. Article 265<\/a> of Constitution of India specifies thatino  hick it <\/p>\n
levied or collected except by authority of law?   <\/p>\n
Legislature of a State to enact law authorising the tpanchaya.tl1svi’to levy”and’<\/p>\n
collect taxes, duties, tolls and fees. So  Article’24t3;<\/a>X enipowers the
\nState Legislature to enact the lawas-:th(:–?rising’th.eeMunicipalities to levy and
\ncollect taxes, duties, tolls and  ‘-,T’nt.e ;Go’vevrnrnfent” of Karnataka had<\/p>\n
enacted the Munie._i:palii7tie_\u00a7;   Act, l9’76 and the<\/p>\n
Panchayathraj Act, l993.\u00ab.._ Under these. three Acts necessary provisions are<\/p>\n
made for levy oftaxes, l’ees’;”cess”‘etc.’ Provisions are also made for issue of<\/p>\n
licenses. V,  rp1*0visi”on.stunder these three Acts do not specify authorising<\/p>\n
 the local under these three enactments to levy and collect the annual<\/p>\n
perinissirons’  and\ufb02nstallation charges in respect of mobile tele~<\/p>\n
t ‘V’comrntntipcatiovn.towers. Further the provision under these three Acts do not
\n~ \u00abspecify thatvthe cellular companies are required to obtain licenses and
\n \u00abpe”r:nissio’n_s for providing telecorn service. In the absence of any such<\/p>\n
 -..a:uth0r%ity under these three enactments, the local bodies are barred from<\/p>\n
a”*”‘”\n<\/p>\n
\n
levying and collecting any fee or installation charges on petitioners and<\/p>\n
other cellular companies for providing telecom service.<\/p>\n
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner.s_l_’arVe’,i_ii’egister’ed_7..<\/p>\n
infrastructure provider category–I. with the G_overntneiit..gofl_l’ndia–,..<\/p>\n
of Coirirnunications and IT, Department of TelecomirztiiiicationsZ}underg<\/p>\n
Section 4 of the Indian Telegraphic Act.  G_overn’me_nt’of India has also
\nissued registration certificates nr.d.e’r the Indian’?Ifele’graphic Act, i885 to the
\npetitioners to operate (3.6llUl.ZlI’vgiTlOi_):iiC ‘ telepho’1i,el  in Karnataka<\/p>\n
Telecorn Circle servilce. is onl’the..sltrength of thecertificates issued under
\nthe Tele.graphic\u00b0’A.ct;y theifiijpetiltiotners are”‘*erecting the mobile towers in
\ndifferent parts of theCountryl’inctl_.uding the State of Karnataka for<\/p>\n
providingtcellular”~rnobile]_ telephone services. Therefore, the petitioners<\/p>\n
fnecd not…requ-ire to obtain*ar1’y license or permission from the respondent<\/p>\n
local :V1QQuCii\u20ac$l’l’\u00bb.E)OE’ l”gro*,{idi.ng and operating telegraph services. Even<\/p>\n
it  otherwise, the. proyisions under these three enactments though provide for<\/p>\n
\u00bb ..fjv\u00bb’v”O__l3t’a.ining license or permission in respect of the areas specified in the<\/p>\n
“schagdule\ufb02nentioned therein, they do not provide to obtain license or<\/p>\n
‘:”p.erinilssion for providing and operating telegraph service. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
  petitioners who have already obtained the registration certificates under the<\/p>\n
\\<\/p>\n
v-…__f-\n<\/p>\n
\n
l9<\/p>\n
Telegraphic Act need not require to obtain any license or perniissiohfrom<\/p>\n
the respondent\u00bb local bodies for providing and operating telegraph’  V<\/p>\n
9. Section 94<\/a> of the Municipalities Act proyidersyfor  of tax  A<\/p>\n
on building or vacant land or both situatedwit’hin}the\u00bb lkrlunicipalpiareai;<\/p>\n
Section 2(3)<\/a> of the Municipalities Act defines the sword  as <\/p>\n
“Building” includes a  by()1.zthho1rseji stable,
\nlatrine, urinal, shed, h;t_;’;”t~,t.,,-a[,’;i vieirahdayhg\ufb02xecl ipAlaVtf()rn2,
\nplinth, doorstep, staircase   ();tier*’_\u00bb structure,
\nwhether of   or any other<\/p>\n
material ivI1at,t’c>e1ier,_–bu:t a”o_es r1()t_’im;f{arle a”15ortai)le shelter.
\nSection—-l–~8.l__ t’oa_l92*o_f,the_lV\u00a3uiiicipalities Act deals with the power of
\nMunieipalityto regulate pconsitruction ‘of buildings.<\/p>\n
l0._ . _ So alsop_Seeti,onA’l._i)3*~*of the KMC Act specifies the levy of tax<\/p>\n
1-ion”o.i.1ildiin;gs ior vacant lhnd’s”or both situated within the city. Section 2<\/a>(1-<\/p>\n
ofbthe defines the word ‘Building’ as under:
\n‘ uilditz  he! an’ e s. —\n<\/p>\n
y S’  house, (,)lH’–h()ltS\u20ac, stable, prz’v3,=, shed, hut, wall,
\n, ire}”,<ar1dc:I1., fixer! platform, plinth, doorstep and any other such
\n .s'trueIure, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mad, ;i_1e;t_a"[ or<\/p>\n
any other material whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
(underline is mine}<\/p>\n
Further Section 295 to 321 of the KMC Act deals with the power to<\/p>\n
regulate construction of buildings.\n<\/p>\n
1}. Similarly, Section I99 of the :l%Z’a”rr1a.t.akai_:  Act it<\/p>\n
specifies levy of tax upon the buildingsand  of”<\/p>\n
defines the word ‘Building’ as under:\n<\/p>\n
r\u00abBm’;dl-Hg\u00bb i,.1C[m-mg. as 5;”mh(;iise,ii”‘.:2itt–l2ciese’; suzble,
\nshop, stable, warehouse,ii’ iv'(1i’k{s!1()Vpi,::v  slzecl, km’ or
\nother enclosure i’whetI1e:”” Vc2.i1_’=r,1_  clwelling or
\notherwise   .c:*i()tii;r)i:~.wizcI wall, fencing,<\/p>\n
verandah, j2lcztfii’r*;:1,. pfir1tli”r,–ir;r)r;s’\u00a3ep CliI’I\u00bb!_.’1′ the like;<\/p>\n
Sectiori-65 \u00abspeci.fie:iCthe’ vpoW.er..to regulate the erection of buildings.<\/p>\n
Section 66<\/a>. _specifiesgVithat’;.no’=_person shall without permission of Gram<\/p>\n
I-iPar’1ehaya.tiiinstallwin any ‘premises any machinery or manufacturing plant,<\/p>\n
driwi’ by V any”powei=si.et’c.. .\n<\/p>\n
j 12.  reiidingoi’ the provisions in the Municipalities Act<\/a> and the KMC<\/p>\n
 iAicots.speci.fies the word ‘Building’ includes a structure made out of metal or<\/p>\n
 __other”\u00a7mate1’ial whatsoever. Further Section 66 of the Panchayathraj Act<\/p>\n
V  _ iispeci1’ies that no person shall install the machinery on any premises without<\/p>\n
,\/\/N”\n<\/p>\n
\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
permission of the Gram Panchayath. Petitioners in order to provide cellular<\/p>\n
mobile telephone services are constructing metal towers. The _ereictioii. of<\/p>\n
these metal towers cornprises installation of commun.ication”–[t’ower–s; <\/p>\n
installation of shelter and a diesel generatorsetattached’Vtovijt; liivariablyilii<\/p>\n
these transmission towers are erected over’*residenitiali,’rc’ornr1′:ereiial.Hand<\/p>\n
industrial buildings, vacant lands etc.–.._Thereforie,,_they evreetijonwiofi these’<\/p>\n
communication towers falls within thQ’C’i’\u20acl;lilil.tli(J\u00a5l of tlievword ‘Building’
\nspecified under the provisions  the, .i\u00a5’tl’iree:’  referred to above.
\nWhenever a person e_re-its a_rnetfal tower within_the limits of the City, Town<\/p>\n
or l\\\/i.unicipality=i’l  Grain  _are required to secure<\/p>\n
permission\/licensed  local body. On completion of
\nerection of towei\u00e9, local body is entitled to levy tax on it.
\nv4’Therei’orB;i’:ithe>.petitioiie.rs:  are erecting towers within the limits of the
\n  .ireq.iiired to obtain perrnission\/license and liable to pay<\/p>\n
taxes*!:o’ the cont:’e–rned ‘local. body.<\/p>\n
 A 13. ii  company by name M\/s. Reliance lnfratel Limited
\nA  the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short “BBMP’)<\/p>\n
“life-r,Vp.eriniss_ion to establish a Base Transceiver Stations comprising erecting<\/p>\n
 metres communication tower, installation of a shelter and a diesel<\/p>\n
‘\\<\/p>\n
aw<\/p>\n
IN)
\nIQ<\/p>\n
generator set at No.63 and 64. 1 Main, Upkar Layout, Whi–t’efgield,<\/p>\n
Bangalore–66. The residents of Upkar Layout complained <\/p>\n
opposing the erection of mobile tower in that area on thelggrouindiithat  i’<\/p>\n
would cause serious health hazard and rad.iatiion poillution in the ‘r_es{id’entia’i.<\/p>\n
area. Consequently the BBMP referred thel’-matter to,.ICen’tral ‘Power’,<\/p>\n
Research Institute for furnishing their ()pl\ufb01i_(l)iiIi on he’alth”‘t:aZarlG_ aspects of<\/p>\n
erecting a communication the reportiroin CPRI,
\nthe BBMP issued an endorsementlnot._toli_pr-\ufb01igceediviiwiiltitthe installation and
\ncommissioning of  ‘endtirsement issued by the
\nBBMP,  iappiroached this court in<\/p>\n
w.P.No.229:;_1\/2Q09.V’l’i’i:yiri’h\u00abg tlitirpentiency of w.P.2293 1.\/2009 the BBMP<\/p>\n
secured a report from”i–thel’india.nl’lnstitute of Science specifying the<\/p>\n
guidelines} in the matter of erecting a communication tower so as to limit<\/p>\n
the exp~o,sut’e_Vof.electro magnetic fields radiated from mobile base stations.<\/p>\n
TheiBBl\\_\/IP “tth5_threri.l’i5i-tiught to the notice of the Court in the said writ<\/p>\n
 petition the (\ufb01ioiverrirnent Order tiateti;20.2.i999, 12.11.2003 and 29.5.2002<\/p>\n
 i’speci.i’ying the guidelines in the matter of erecting communication towers<\/p>\n
 and the substance of these Government orders is as under:<\/p>\n
b.\n<\/p>\n
(1.\n<\/p>\n
That they .S’llOl.\u00a3l(l obtain approval of Air Traff’t’c’ Controller,<\/p>\n
Airport A.LtIl1()1″lI_\\,-‘ of India, for exemption of Roof I:}f?’:}~3.t17l.?._I16l<\/p>\n
from restriction, in case such exemption is r’eq_1t’iir.’ecl. K    5′
\nThat they should inform the local ..a4t.ttltorit}?l “c’rolteeelrtteel 1′;-e.
\nCommissioner, Mtmicipalities,s  Urbaij,  _D’Uvelo”pnietit<\/p>\n
Department, etc. along w.._i_ti’2.. _ the heces.sary  arta’U<\/p>\n
consent letter of the . build in-3g”().t\u00bbizrter’~b_e fo re ii’nstall(t:’tion.<\/p>\n
That they are .s’olelly.e_’resprfhsibie may damage to the<\/p>\n
lmilelittg.      *<\/p>\n
Thai tl’ie3?”– sl’i’oit’t_dbtttk[e. _.s*pe__ei\u20actl”;trecau.tions for fire safety and<\/p>\n
Ivligl_1:ettit1g,Veta,  ll<\/p>\n
Grmttitzg ‘per”rnltss’i()*.=1_V to the Company to install electric<\/p>\n
l ‘V e*t]Ltiph’zent;s;for’ telecom operation, the Department of Urban
\n_\ufb01l:)i.eaielopthet-tt, Mimicipttl Corporation shall ensure that the
\nvi  sltttl l obtain clearances from the following agencies:
\n ”  No objection certificate from Electrical Inspectorate<\/p>\n
Vii) No objection certi\ufb01cate from Directorate of Fire<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
Services<\/p>\n
iii) N0 0I2_jecn’0n cerrzficcire from owners as.s(icric1fEt2ri..s’ of<\/p>\n
building.\n<\/p>\n
14. In wp No.’2293l\/2009 M\/s.__.Reliance’it’liifratell’-ileiniited”= <\/p>\n
submitted that they will comply with the requii’.eme_ntr~specifi\u00e9idrin “~!fCf;i,.l_I’i<\/p>\n
submitted by the “Indian Institute lofiscience  and.:’<\/p>\n
Government Orders dated 2.0.2.1999—,– V1712.’ i..1_.20or\u00ab -.and_ii 29.5.2002.
\nRecording the undertaking gzivenlby _M.\/ls._ Limited, the said
\nW.P.2293i\/2009 came .a;oDbe_ disgpiosledet’. ii  I  it i E<\/p>\n
l5. The installation of’lc:omrn’unication tower either on vacant
\nland or on the rot\u00e9i ioii.bu’ildi11gi”c.Qrn..prises installation of communication<\/p>\n
tower, installatienof shelte’1′.an_d.\ufb01lielsel generator set attached to it. This<\/p>\n
activity o.i_\u00a7:eree.ting a”co_1_ninuni’::ation tower involves the safety of building,<\/p>\n
safety’ pe_voni1;;.jresi_ivding in the said building and in the neighborhood.<\/p>\n
Further”i–t_inv’oives_ the”healtli of residents in the locality due to emission of<\/p>\n
radiationi'”‘fro”in such towers. Therefore, the erection of mobile towers<\/p>\n
\u00bb.:i’ne’eessa1’–il.y involves the regulation by local body similar to the regulation<\/p>\n
 “of erectlion of a building. The local bodies are having an obligation under<\/p>\n
“themprtivisions of three enactments referred t.o above to regulate the<\/p>\n
J.\n<\/p>\n
\n
erection, installation and cominissioning oi’ the mobile towers. As such. the<\/p>\n
petitioners are required to obtain permission\/license for ereetion:’o-!’;~th’eh.<\/p>\n
mobile towers.\n<\/p>\n
16. The license obtained by the petitiioneifisi  lithe<\/p>\n
Indian Telegraphic Act is only in  rnobilewi’<\/p>\n
telephone services. The said license  Telegraphic Act is
\nnot for the purpose of erecting a   held, erecting of
\nmobile tower comes”    A word ‘Building’.\n<\/p>\n
Whenever a buildizig    the local body then the same
\nrequires to be  public safety and health.
\nTherefore,  lieense: _.the petitioners under the Indian<\/p>\n
Telegraphic_Act is”entirel_y’q–,di_tfereriit from the permission or license to be<\/p>\n
obtained”ifron1._*-stAhei\u00bbr.local ibodies’ for erecting mobile towers. The license<\/p>\n
obtained.ui’ide:r’\u00abtheilndian Telegraphic Act serves different purpose and the<\/p>\n
Z”””license\/permission” tube obtained under the local bodies serves a different<\/p>\n
” ‘?}’vpu_rp<)se. "TH_hiere.fore, the petitioners are required to obtain the<\/p>\n
 p~ern1.issi.,onl'license from the respondent\/local bodies for the purpose of<\/p>\n
A  the mobile towers.\n<\/p>\n
d”\n<\/p>\n
\n
17. Once the petitioners erect a mobile tower within the limits of<\/p>\n
respondent – local bodies by obtaining permission from themji<\/p>\n
under the definition of the word ‘Building’. If a building islerected” <\/p>\n
the limits of the respondent \u00bb local bodies then they are?.em.po_we1_ed to\ufb02levyp<\/p>\n
and collect taxes  per the provisions of the’ienaetment\u00a7;V”~._:tnd. the” <\/p>\n
Therefore, the petitioners who have erectedpliirnobile  _la.=rel’libablle to payll<\/p>\n
taxes to the respondent ~–loca:l’*~i.bt)diesllas-vipers’-._the provisions of the<\/p>\n
enactments and the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
18. It is brought.__to:.m’y no.tice” that  Bruhatl Bangalore Mahanagara
\nPalike arnendteidiitltel. l?Z:t1lesl:i\u00a7elati’i’tg to assessment of buildings for the period<\/p>\n
2008-09 to 20304 provision is made to levy taxes on<\/p>\n
mobile towers at Rs.132,000\/–i’per\u00abannum per tower. It is not brought to my<\/p>\n
fnotiee  ;_stuc’n_ arnentlr–n–en’t to the taxation Rules in respect of<\/p>\n
  Act and Panchayat Raj Act. The respondent M<\/p>\n
2 *.local bodies t_1nde.i_ ‘these three enactments are entitled to amend their<\/p>\n
~ \u00abi’.j’jV\u00bb-‘taxation Rules lproviding levy of taxes on mobile towers. Till the relevant<\/p>\n
‘*Rulesrnbrel’}amended by the respondent authorities in accordance with law,<\/p>\n
ll “‘–therespondent authorities are at liberty to adopt the Rules framed by Bruhat<\/p>\n
ii”–Bangalore Mahanagara Palike in the matter of levying taxes on mobile<\/p>\n
.r-.._<\/p>\n
yd”\n<\/p>\n
t_.\/l<\/p>\n
towers. The impugned notices issued by the respondents are not btasepd on<\/p>\n
any Rules. These demand notices based on resolutions the<\/p>\n
respondent local bodies are arbitrary, unguided and not  <\/p>\n
Rules and as such they are liable to be quashed;  is the<\/p>\n
respondent W local bodies, under the three enactments, to ,l’eyy”and ‘col’ivect*..<\/p>\n
taxes in accordance with law. By quashingthe impulgned’notic.es there will<\/p>\n
be a void situation in the matter’   thellpetitioners who
\nhave already erected and operating  in the limits of
\nrespondent — local     necessary to balance
\nthe interest of    ‘thepetiltioners are liable to pay tax
\nof Rs.l2,O0(l;l5 tillappropriate Rules are framed for<\/p>\n
levying taxes on~_hell.payrnent of Rs.l2,000\/– per mobile<\/p>\n
tower per._\u00a7annri.1n. is subject to the framing of Rules by the respondent —<\/p>\n
local bodies and.the’s.arne is adjustable.<\/p>\n
l9~.._ V_\u00a7;;ea1ined counsel. for the petitioners relying on a judgment of<\/p>\n
it :v”.4Gui.aratVtHig.h’iCourt in Indus Towers Limited Vs. State of Gujarat reported<\/p>\n
‘l'{\u00a3.'(‘:l’tl’};;cl’I’i}’E”‘l.4EiW Reporter Vol. 5E(2) 1730 contend that it is not permissible<\/p>\n
..fo1a-~vtlie respondent W authorities to levy and collect permission fees and<\/p>\n
installation charges in respect of mobile telecommunication towers. In<\/p>\n
\u00abJ<\/p>\n
lndus Towers Limited’s Case the Government resolution dated 1.l..’l2–.2008<\/p>\n
issued by the Government of Gujarat and Urban Housing Dep\u00ab’:1_r’Lrrienut’ge~and.<\/p>\n
the demand notices issued pursuant thereto providing for.levy_Vand_ireeovery_ it <<\/p>\n
of annual pernnssion fees and
\ntelecommunication towers was ehallenged.ii'lnri'the
\nimpugned notice specifies that the   passed
\nresolution demanding perniissionfee   I. am in
\nagreement with the law laid dowAn..i.n:i.  Case. On this<\/p>\n
ground also the impu gneci:1ir:'n'oEiQe:'*21re _1i"able:_4to_Vb'e'quashed. <\/p>\n
20. For the re2rs\u00e95o_i1s state:14a’o.ov’e, theliollowing order:\n<\/p>\n
1) V’V:1?l:[“pf3[llZlG11$   allowed.\n<\/p>\n
ii) ‘ii ‘The impugned orders\/demand notices as under are hereby<\/p>\n
   Annexures Dated Amount<\/p>\n
19530\/..2’0’o-5 G F 08.07.2005 2 ,40,000\/-<\/p>\n
L * 710.02\/:t)09 &
\n*  ss747j2-73\/2009 NIL NIL NIL<\/p>\n
7163\/2009 &
\n7’487–92\/ 2009<\/p>\n
7164\/2009 &
\n7485-7486\/2009<\/p>\n
7165\/2009 &
\n7474–84\/ 2009<\/p>\n
8124-8 1 132,\/2009 <\/p>\n
NIL<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
NIL<\/p>\n
 ~.\u00bb18_._2.20_09 ” *
\n 13-2′-2009  9<\/p>\n
202.2009  _ ” ‘
\n04.2.2009’
\nLe   18.2;’200’9 ~
\n  1-s3%.2.2009\u00ab…\n<\/p>\n
 ~4..V1.s.=2.A2009<\/p>\n
18.2.2009<\/p>\n
 . ”i~.8.2~.{2.OG9
\n 18.2.2009
\n  13.2-.2009<\/p>\n
0 _:8.2.2009
\n18.2.2009<\/p>\n
18.2.2009
\n18.2.2009<\/p>\n
18.2.2009
\n25.2.2009<\/p>\n
29.01.2009<\/p>\n
16.3.2009<\/p>\n
   3.1
\n   _
\n=  .e1%4;3V%:1T1,$\u00ab52\/.–.._ <\/p>\n
25,000\/.-\n<\/p>\n
 “1 25,000.7-\n<\/p>\n
2,39,244\/–\n<\/p>\n
89,826\/–\n<\/p>\n
1,30,-453\/–\n<\/p>\n
l.,32,024\/–\n<\/p>\n
l,30,630\/-\n<\/p>\n
l,29,268\/–\n<\/p>\n
1,22,508\/–\n<\/p>\n
1,30, 154\/-\n<\/p>\n
231,981\/–\n<\/p>\n
l,28,748\/–\n<\/p>\n
50,000-\n<\/p>\n
85,980\/–\n<\/p>\n
32,000\/–\n<\/p>\n
50,000\/–\n<\/p>\n
7,500\/-\n<\/p>\n
0.  El<\/p>\n
1.1243168\/200\u00a7i:\u00a7–.V.  A<\/p>\n
B2 04.03.2009 25 ,000\/–\n<\/p>\n
22.01.2009 50,000\/–\n<\/p>\n
 iii) 1′ T1116 petiiioners are required to obtain license from the respondent<\/p>\n
local bodies under the relevant enactments for erecting mobile<\/p>\n
towers; .\n<\/p>\n
$\u00a5’$’\u00b0’-A<\/p>\n
5..\n<\/p>\n
\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
iv) If the petitioners have all ready erected mobile towersfthen they<\/p>\n
have to seek regularisation from the responden:t”i’or_:’a}._hoIdi_esi in<\/p>\n
that event the respondent local. bodies have..to_:’eons.ider the<\/p>\n
in accordance with law keepirig in..rn’1jnd’–_the_’public~,safety’ and–._ 4]<\/p>\n
health.\n<\/p>\n
V) The respondent local bodies at  the Taxation
\nRules providing    or they may
\nadopt the ‘Bangalore Mahanagara<\/p>\n
vi)    vdpetditioners are iiable to pay a sum<\/p>\n
 ._  annuiii per mobile tower as tax to the
\n and the same is subject to amendment of
\n‘V taxation.’  respondent local bodies and the same is a<\/p>\n
1″  vvdC)ir-\u00a7,ei’ed=.accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
  sar-<\/p>\n
\nJudge\n\nA    'L.R_$i'DKB\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Hutchison Essar South Ltd vs Corporation Of The City Of Belgaum on 25 November, 2010 Author: H N Das 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\u00a7AJ' & ASSTS.) T 'CORPORATION OF THE CITY E OF EELGAUM WBEIQGAUM. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-262119","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHutchison Essar South Ltd vs Corporation Of The City Of Belgaum on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hutchison Essar South Ltd vs Corporation Of The City Of Belgaum on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-24T02:31:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hutchison Essar South Ltd vs Corporation Of The City Of Belgaum on 25 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-24T02:31:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3212,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Hutchison Essar South Ltd vs Corporation Of The City Of Belgaum on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-24T02:31:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hutchison Essar South Ltd vs Corporation Of The City Of Belgaum on 25 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hutchison Essar South Ltd vs Corporation Of The City Of Belgaum on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hutchison Essar South Ltd vs Corporation Of The City Of Belgaum on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-24T02:31:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hutchison Essar South Ltd vs Corporation Of The City Of Belgaum on 25 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-24T02:31:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010"},"wordCount":3212,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010","name":"Hutchison Essar South Ltd vs Corporation Of The City Of Belgaum on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-24T02:31:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hutchison-essar-south-ltd-vs-corporation-of-the-city-of-belgaum-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hutchison Essar South Ltd vs Corporation Of The City Of Belgaum on 25 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262119","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=262119"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262119\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262119"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262119"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262119"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}