WIRELESS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein who are the licencees under the provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885 for providing telecommunication services to the general public had approached this Court by filing the respective writ petitions from which the present appeals arise: In the said writ petitions, the petitioners had called in question the demands raised against the petitioners by the respective Local Bodies. The demands had been raised in respect of the erection of the base trans-receiver station. The contention on behalf of the petitioners therein was that the Municipal authorities/Local Bodies have no authority to make physical demand in respect of the telecommunication towers installed. It was their contention that the provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, Panchayath Raj Act and Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act does not provide for the imposition of property tax, licence fee, permission fee etc., on telecommunication towers.

(2.) The learned Single Judge though has accepted the contention that there is no provision to collect the permission fee and installation charges in respect of communication towers has thereafter held that the structure viz., the telecommunication tower answers the definition of 'building' as defined under Section 2(3) and 2(1-A) of the respective Acts. Though the demand notices were quashed, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the quantified amount as fixed by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara.Palike is to be adopted by the other local bodies. A further direction was also issued for framing such law/rules in this regard. The petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge are before this Court in these intra-Court appeals.

(3.) Heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel Sri Shailesh K. Kapoor, Col. Bhupinder Singh, Sri Gururaj learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants and Sri B. Veerappa, learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri Indra Kumar, learned senior counsel and the respective learned counsel for the other respondents and perused the appeal papers.