7.wp.9835-09gr 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION [1] WRIT PETITON NO.9835 OF 2009 Bharti Infratel Limited and others. ..Petitioners Versus Sangli­Miraj­Kupwad Cities City Municipal Corporation and another. ..Respondents. ... Mr.S. Jagtiani, Advocate a/w. Jay Joshi, Advocate i/b. Mustafa Motiwala, for the Petitioners. Mr.G.H. Keluskar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. ... .... WITH [2] WRIT PETITON NO.9801 OF 2009 21st Century Infra Tele Limited and another. ..Petitioners Versus Sangli­Miraj­Kupwad Municipal Corporation and another. ..Respondents. ... Mr.V.R. Dhond, Advocate with H. Rehman, Advocate i/b. D.H. Law Asso. for the Petitioners. Mr.G.H. Keluskar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. ... 7.wp.9835-09gr 2 ... WITH [3] WRIT PETITON NO.9802 OF 2009 Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd., ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.G.S. Godbole, Advocate i/b. P.B. Anand, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.R. Nargolkar, AGP, for Respondent No.1. Mr.Sudhir Prabhu, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. ... ... WITH [4] WRIT PETITON NO.9806 OF 2009 Idea Cellular Limited and another. ..Petitioners Versus Sangli­Miraj­Kupwad Municipal Corporation and another. ..Respondents. ... Mr.V.R. Dhond, Advocate with H. Rehman, Advocate i/b. D.H. Law Asso. for the Petitioners. Mr.G.H. Keluskar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. ... ... WITH [5] WRIT PETITON NO.9807 OF 2009 GTL Infrastructure Limited ..Petitioner Versus Sangli­Miraj­Kupwad Municipal Corporation and another. ..Respondents. 7.wp.9835-09gr 3 ... Mr.V.R. Dhond, Advocate with H. Rehman, Advocate i/b. D.H. Law Asso. for the Petitioner. Mr.Sudhir Prabhu, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. ... ... WITH [6] WRIT PETITON NO.9976 OF 2009 Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Limited. ..Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. ... Mr.H.S. Venegaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.R. Nargolkar, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr.Sudhir Prabhu, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... ... WITH [7] WRIT PETITON NO.9981 OF 2009 Reliance Communications Limited and others. ..Petitioners Versus Municipal Corporation of Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities and another. ..Respondents. ... Ms.Anjali Chandorkar, Advocate a/w. Onkar Chandorkar, Advocate i/b. Mulla & Mulla for the Petitioners. Mr.Sudhir Prabhu, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. ... 7.wp.9835-09gr 4 WITH [8] WRIT PETITON NO.9983 OF 2009 Aircel Limited and another. ..Petitioners Versus Sangli Miraj & Kupwad City Mahanagar Palika and another. ..Respondents. .... Ms.Rubbeca Dias, Advocate i/b. G.D. Talreja, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.G.H. Keluskar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 11, 2010. P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the sides. We have perused the record. The following, therefore, can be taken as admitted positions : (a) the Corporation had taken action against the petitioners’ because according to the Corporation the towers were 7.wp.9835-09gr 5 erected without getting building permission from the Corporation; (b) the towers that were sealed have admittedly been desealed pursuant to the order passed by the Court; (c) the petitioners have made applications to the Corporation seeking permission of the Corporation for regularization of the towers; and (d) those applications are still pending. 3. In view of the above admitted positions, in our opinion, interest of justice would be served by disposing of the Petitions in the following terms: [i] The Corporation to communicate the petitioners the deficiencies, if any, in the applications of the petitioners and give the petitioners reasonable time to remove the deficiencies. Thereafter the Corporation shall make order on the applications in accordance with law and communicate that order to the petitioners. [ii] In case the Corporation decides not to regularize the towers, the Corporation shall communicate that order to the petitioners with reasons for its conclusions. The Corporation, however, shall not take any action pursuant to 7.wp.9835-09gr 6 its order declining to regularize the towers, for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of that order. [iii] Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Petitions are disposed of accordingly. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)