IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7595 of 2009 Between : M/s. Indus Towers Limited, 3rd Floor, USHA 36 Jubilee Towers, Road No. 36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Circle Head Sri A. Siva Prakash Rao, R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Greater Visakhaptnam Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in trying to remove the towers/installations erected by the petitioner without issuing any notice and without following due process of law and in violation of the provisions of H.M.C. Act 1955 as arbitrary illegl, and in violation of the well settled principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.RAMA RAO GHANTA Counsel for the Respondent: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the notice, dated 2nd April 2009, issued by the Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. 2. In the aforesaid notice, owners of the buildings namely M/s.S.Subbalakshmi and Smt.B.H.Krishna Kumari of houses bearing D.Nos.58-11-147 and 58-15-66/4 of Ramalayam Veedhi, Karasa and Shanthi Nagar respectively, were directed to get necessary permissions from the local authority to maintain the roof top installations on the buildings owned by them. 3. The said notice is mainly questioned on the ground that the petitioners are the affected parties, as much as they have entered into “Leave-cum-License Agreement” with the owners of the buildings, and have erected the towers, and no notice is issued to them. Even in the impugned notice, the petitioners are directed to take necessary permission to maintain such roof top installations. If the petitioners are the affected parties, and as much as it is stated that they have erected the towers based on the agreements entered into with the respondents, the petitioners are directed to make a representation in response to the notice, dated 2nd of April 2009, issued to the building owners referred above. 4. The petitioners are granted one week time to make a representation to the Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation in response to the notice, dated 2nd of April 2009, either seeking permission for installation of towers or to make any other representation to maintain the existing installations. On filing such representation, the respondents shall consider the same and give intimation to the petitioners. Till such time, no further action shall be taken in pursuance to the notice, dated 2nd of April 2009. 5. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th April 2009 ajr