THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.1255 OF 2009 DATED: 22.06.2010 Between : 1. M/s. Tata Teleservices Limited, rep. by Its Assistant Manager (Legal) and another. … Petitioners And Sri P. S. Pradyumna, I.A.S., Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District. … Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.1255 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioners herein are engaged in the business of telecommunication services and claim to have possessed license from the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India. They filed W.P.No.14089 of 2009 seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent in trying to remove the towers erected by them without issuing prior notice and without giving opportunity to the petitioners as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners also sought interim direction to the respondent Corporation in W.P.M.P.No.18442 of 2009 not to demolish or remove the ground based and roof top towers erected by the petitioners within the limits of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. This Court while directing to post W.P.M.P.No.18442 of 2009 after two weeks for counter of the respondent, passed the following order on 14.7.2009. “Post after two weeks for counter. In the meanwhile, there shall be interim directions as prayed for.” This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the above order dated 14.07.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.18442 of 2009 in W.P.No.14089 of 2009. It is alleged in this contempt case that the petitioners had submitted a representation dated 20.7.2009 bringing to the notice of the respondent Corporation the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.18442 of 2009 followed by another representation dated 24.8.2009. It is alleged that ignoring the order of this Court the tower erected on the premises bearing No.33-1-5, Seeetharampur, Balajisingh Street, Kovelamudi Street Junction, Vijayawada was removed by the workmen engaged by the respondent Corporation which resulted in effecting the entire network in Vijayawada apart from causing damage to the equipment. It is alleged that the action of the respondent in removing the tower amounts to deliberate violation of the order of this Court and therefore the respondent is liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that the details of the towers put up by the petitioner within the territorial areas of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation were not specified in the writ petition and even the prayer in the writ petition and W.P.M.P.No.18442 of 2009 was vague and lacking material particulars of the towers. It is explained that the petitioners had erected several towers within the territorial area of the Municipal Corporation and due to various complaints that were received by the Corporation from the residents of the locality, the Corporation was constrained to initiate action and remove the cell tower of the petitioners erected at No.33-1- 5, Seeetharampur, Balajisingh Streeet and Kovelamudi Street Junction, Vijayawada on 28.8.2009. It is explained that though the petitioner had applied for permission for erection of cell tower at the said premises on 16.7.2008, the same was rejected on 3.8.2009 and even in W.P.No.14089 of 2009 the particulars of the cell tower at the said premises were not mentioned and there was reference only to the cell towers in Plot No.54 of Commercial Complex Colony. In the circumstances, the tower at the premises bearing No.33-1-5 was removed on 28.8.2009 taking into consideration the complaints of the residents of the locality and the same would not have been done had the writ petitioner given the details of the cell towers in the writ petition. Thus it is pleaded that the allegation of deliberate violation of the order of this Court is unfounded. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record, including the counter- affidavit filed by the respondents. At the outset, it is to be noticed that what is alleged to be violated by the respondent Corporation is an interim order passed pending the writ petition. It is not disputed before this Court that the writ petition has not been subsequently listed before this Court and no further orders have been passed after 14.7.2009. From the material available on record, it appears that there is a dispute with regard to erection of the tower in question at premises bearing No.33-1-5. Whereas the petitioner claims that it was erected after giving intimation to the respondent Corporation, it is contended by the respondent Corporation that the permission for erection of cell tower at the premises in question was rejected on 3.8.2009. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners have erected number of towers within the territorial area of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and admittedly the complaint in this contempt case is with regard to only one tower erected at Door No.33-1-5. As rightly pointed out by the respondent, the particulars of the towers erected by the petitioners were not furnished in the writ petition. In the absence of such details, particularly having regard to the specific stand taken by the respondent that the permission for erection of the said tower was rejected on 3.8.2009, it cannot be held that the removal of the tower on 28.8.2009 amounts to deliberate and wilful violation of the order of this Court. Having regard to the wording of the interim order dated 14.7.2009, it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that it was understood by the respondent that the order was in force only for a period of two weeks from 14.7.2009. At any rate, as the order dated 14.7.2009 is only an interim order, and it is always open to the petitioners to seek necessary directions in the writ petition which is pending, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit matter to take cognizance under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed leaving it open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application in the writ petition for permission to re-erect the tower and other necessary reliefs. It is also open to the petitioner to take steps for recovery of damages for the loss allegedly suffered by them on account of removal of the tower in question by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law if so advised. Contempt Case is accordingly closed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 22.06.2010 gbs