3.wpst.4156-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON (STAMP) NO.4156 OF 2010 Essar Telecom Infrastructure. ..Petitioner. Versus Pune Municipal Corporation and others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.V.V. Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Amit Jamshindikar Advocate a/w. A. Rahman, Advocate i/b. M/s. D.H. Law Associates, for the Petitioner. Mr.A.P. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.S.N. Patil, AGP, for Respondent No.4. ... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 18, 2010. P.C. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. The petitioner have erected about 26 telecommunication towers within the jurisdiction of Respondent-Corporation. It is the case of the petitioner that before erecting those towers, applications to the Corporation were made for permission to erect the towers. But the Corporation has not decided those applications. According to the petitioner one of its towers at Warje Malwadi is concerned, the power supplied 3.wpst.4156-10 2 to that tower has been sealed by the Corporation. 2. Within a period of one week from today, the petitioner shall supply to the Corporation details of the applications made by them to the Corporation for erection of various towers and shall make any additional submission that the petitioner may like to make in support of their applications for permission to erect the towers. 3. The Corporation shall decide that application in accordance with law, after considering the material submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible in any case within a period of four weeks from the date on which the petitioner will submit the representation referred to above. 4. In case, according to the Corporation there are any discrepancies in the applications submitted by the petitioner, those discrepancies shall be pointed out by the Corporation to the petitioner within a period of one week from the petitioner submitting the Representation referred to above and one week shall be granted to the petitioner to remove those discrepancies, and orders on the applications shall be made only thereafter. Till the applications are decided as directed above, the Corporation shall not take any step to 3.wpst.4156-10 3 demolish the towers. The learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation has stated before us that whatever discrepancies have to be communicated to the petitioner shall be communicated by the Corporation to the Architect of the Petitioner. Similarly the final order that is to be passed shall also be communicated to the Architect of the Petitioner. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent - Corporation states that the Corporation has communicated the discrepancies in the application of the petitioner in relation to the towers at Warje Malwadi and thereafter the seal has been put. In our opinion, the Corporation does not have authority in law to put its seal on the tower and to disconnect the power connection. In any case, such an action could not have been taken by the Corporation keeping the application of the petitioner pending. The Corporation could have rejected the application and then taken action which law permits it to take. We, therefore, permit the petitioner to remove the seal which is put on the tower at Warje Malwadi immediately and to reconnect the supply. 6. In case, the permission is refused to the petitioner, the remedies that may be available to the petitioner against that 3.wpst.4156-10 4 order of the Corporation, are left open to be adopted by the petitioner. 7. In case the permission is refused, the Corporation shall not take step to demolish/disconnect the towers for a period of two weeks from the date on which the rejection order is communicated to the petitioner. 8. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)