1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 5212/2010. Viom Networks Ltd. -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 09, 2011. Heard Shri M. Anilkumar, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri M.K. Pathan, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1, Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, learned Counsel for respondent no.2, Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 and Shri Anoop Parihar, learned Counsel for respondent no.4. Shri Anilkumar, learned counsel points out that the application dated 10.05.2010 moved by the petitioner for development [for installation and 2 operation of cellular site is still pending. He further states that as the application remained pending for more than 60 days, a deemed permission is already granted to the petitioner. However, as the electric connection was not released and because of the resistance of neighbours the construction of towers is still incomplete. Shri Kalwaghe, learned counsel states that the application dated 10.05.2010 is already rejected by respondent no.2 on 16.09.2010. He is relying on the affidavit for the said purpose. He points out that, that application as also permission for electric connection has been rejected. The application dated 10.05.2010 is under section 44 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The order dated 16.09.2010 is on the subject of No objection certificate for obtaining electric connection with reference to communication dated 30.08.2010, but, it does not contain any reference to application dated 10.05.2010 moved by the petitioner. However, in any case though the period of 3 one year has expired from 10.05.2010, the construction of tower is still not commenced. In this situation, we direct the respondent no.2 to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on application dated 10.05.2010 as early as possible and in any case within a period of three months, after giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner for said purpose. The communication dated 16.09.2010 shall not come in the way of respondent no.2 while considering the application dated 10.05.2010. Petitioner to remain present before respondent no.2 for this purpose on 28.11.2011 and shall abide by his further instructions in the matter. Needless to mention that all contentions raised by petitioner are kept open and can be agitated before appropriate forum, in accordance with law. With this direction, Writ Petition is disposed of, with no orders as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd