1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1062 OF 2011 (Indus Towers Limited and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and another) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : MARCH 3, 2011 Heard Shri Gordey, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Deshpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1, and Shri Dhatrak, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2. Shri Gordey, learned Counsel for the petitioners, states that the issue involved in the present petition is no more res integra and is covered by the order dated 3/12/2009 passed by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 10156/2009 as well as order dated 2 18/1/2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2376/2010. It is submitted that the issue involved in the present petition pertains to 17 mobile towers located at different parts of the city of Chandrapur, out of which Municipal Council has issued notices under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, “the MRTP Act”) in respect of six towers and in respect of three towers, action of sealing has been taken by the Municipal Council without issuing the requisite notice under Section 53 of the MRTP Act. It is further submitted that by virtue of the above referred orders passed by this Court, the owners of the towers in the said writ petitions were permitted to make applications for regularisation under Section 44 of the MRTP Act to the Planning Authority and the Planning Authority was directed to decide the same in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard and till such time, the petitioners were permitted to operate from the said mobile towers. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the present petitioners shall submit applications under 3 Section 44 of the MRTP Act before respondent Municipal Council within a period of one week from today. Shri Dhatrak, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2, states that applications of the petitioners shall be considered and decision will be taken in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such applications. Shri Gordey, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, prays that till decision is taken by the respondent Municipal Council on the applications of the petitioners under Section 44 of the MRTP Act, respondents may be asked not to take any action under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act. Shri Gordey, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, further states that the respondent Municipal Council has sealed the following three mobile towers of the petitioners : (i) Gubbawar Bled, Ward No.333 (Sr. No.6), (ii) Konark Apartment, Hanuman Mandir (Sr. No.8), (iii) Vidarbha Premier Cooperative Housing 4 Society (Sr. No.12). It is prayed that the respondent Municipal Council may be asked to deseal those towers and permit the petitioners to make them functional till decision is taken by the respondent Municipal Council on the applications of the petitioners under Section 44 of the MRTP Act since similar relief has been granted by this Court by the above referred orders. Shri Dhatrak, learned Counsel for the respondent Municipal Council, has not disputed that the issue involved in the present petition was involved in the earlier writ petitions decided at Bombay and Nagpur. Having considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel for the parties and in view of the undisputed facts, we permit the petitioners to make applications under Section 44 of the MRTP Act before respondent Municipal Council within a period of one week from today. We direct the respondent Municipal Council to decide the applications of the petitioners in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard within a 5 period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the same. Till such decision is taken on the applications, the parties are directed to maintain status quo. In the circumstances and in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court, we direct the respondent Municipal Council to deseal the aforesaid towers of the petitioners within 48 hours and petitioners shall be permitted to make them functional. However, it shall be subject to decision of the Municipal Council on the applications of the petitioners under Section 44 of the MRTP Act. Shri Gordey, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that if order of the Municipal Council is adverse to the petitioners, in that event, the order of status quo may kindly be continued for a period of two weeks thereafter. It is submitted that similar relief was granted by this Court by earlier orders. In the circumstances, if the order of the respondent Municipal Council is adverse to the petitioners, the order of status quo shall be in operation for a period of two weeks from the date of order. 6 With the above observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj