Mobile Towers – India Legal

Uttarakhand High Court directs DM Dehradun to consider installation of mobile Tower near Anganwadi Kendra

Chayanika Joshi — Thu, 11 Jan 2024 07:30:17 +0000

The Uttarakhand High Court has directed the District Magistrate, Dehradun to consider petitioner’s representation regarding the issue of installation of Mobile Tower near Anganwadi Kendra.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma disposed of a Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner raising the issue of installation of Mobile Tower. According to him, Mobile Tower is being installed near the house of private respondent and the authorities be directed not to permit installation of the said Mobile Tower.

Pranav Singh , counsel for petitioner submitted that the place, where Mobile Tower is being installed, is next to an Anganwadi Kendra, and due to the radiations emitted by the Mobile Tower, health of the toddlers, studying in said Anganwadi Kendra, would be adversely affected.

He further submitted that the concerned Agency has not even sought permission from the concerned authorities for installing said Mobile Tower.

The State Counsel, however, submits that, as per the Rules regarding Mobile Towers, applicable in the State of Uttarakhand, there is no prohibition in installing/ erecting Mobile Tower near school, hospital, Anganwadi Kendra etc.

He further submitted that there is no empirical study done so far, which proves that the radiations emitted by Mobile Towers are harmful for health. He further submits that the Petition appears to have been filed in public interest, but there is no public interest, worth the name, involved in the matter.

The High Court find substance in the submission made by the State Counsel. Where a Mobile Tower should be erected/ installed, is a decision, which needs to be taken by the authorities. In the absence of any empirical study that the radiation emitted from a Mobile Tower is dangerous to human life, the authorities cannot be restrained from erecting Mobile Tower at the place where it is being erected. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter , held by the High Court.

The counsel for petitioner then submitted that petitioner had made a representation to District Magistrate, Dehradun, who may be directed to take a decision thereupon.

“We, accordingly, dispose of the Writ Petition, with a direction to District Magistrate, Dehradun to consider petitioner’s representation, and pass appropriate orders thereupon, as per law/ policy, within four weeks from date of production of certified copy of this order, along with copy of the representation”, the order reads.

State to lift mobile internet ban in areas untouched by violence on trial basis: Manipur High Court

Chayanika Joshi — Tue, 07 Nov 2023 06:33:11 +0000

The Manipur High Court has given instructions to the Manipur state for making the mobile towers in districts not affected by violence to be operational on the trial basis.

A Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Golmei Gaiphulshillu Kabui have also instructed the state for extending the same service(making mobile towers operational) in other states if the law and order situation permits.

The Commissioner (Home) of Manipur government issued an order extending the ban on mobile internet in the State till November 8.

The State’s order had also stated that the government would open mobile towers on trial basis in district headquarters not affected by violence.

The Special State counsel for Manipur government submitted a copy of the order in the Court after which the Court issues the directive.

The Court said that after having heard the learned counsel on behalf of the parties the State of Manipur is directed to open and operationalize mobile towers on a trial basis in all those District Headquarters which have not been affected by violence and thereafter, if found feasible, extend the services to other areas where the law and order situation, so permits.

It clarified that even in districts partially affected by violence, mobile towers should be operationalized right away in those areas which have not been affected.

The Court also directed the government to upload on its official website copies of all orders related to suspension of internet services in Manipur.

The matter will be heard for compliance on November 9.

Local Bodies Can Levy Tax on Mobile Towers

India Legal — Thu, 29 Dec 2016 08:47:00 +0000

The Supreme Court has ruled that the mobile towers fall under the purview of state legislation and hence liable to pay taxes

By Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr

The Supreme Court has on December 16, ruled that municipalities, panchayats and other local bodies can impose a tax on mobile towers.

The Court has also said that the tax will be payable by the service provider and not the owner of the land or building where the tower is situated.

Disposing of a bunch of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs GTL Infrastructure Ltd and Others case, the court set aside an earlier Gujarat High Court verdict which declared the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation’s ‘property tax’ on mobile towers as ultra vires. There was however a complication that arose out of the High Court’s judgement because it distinguished between the land where the tower stands, which it said cannot be taxed, and the Base Transceiver Station (BTS), which comprises of a prefabricated shelter, electronic panel, radio transmission and reception equipment, a diesel generator set, six poles of 6 to 9 metres length steel galvanized pipes, and which constitutes a building that can be taxed.

The petitioner’s contention, which was mainly from the mobile phone service providers, was that that the service provided comes under the ‘telegraph’, and therefore it cannot be deemed a property, and that it does not come under the purview of local authorities.

The petitioner’s contention, which was mainly from the mobile phone service providers, was that that the service provided comes under the ‘telegraph’, and therefore it cannot be deemed a property, and that it does not come under the purview of local authorities.

What was challenged in the Gujarat High Court was Section 145A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, which said, “(1) A tax at the rates not exceeding those prescribed by order in writing by the State Government in this behalf from time to time shall be levied on mobile towers from the person engaged in providing telecommunication services through such mobile towers. (2) The Corporation shall from year to year, in accordance with Section 99, determine the rates at which the tax shall be levied.”

Through the Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2011, similar provisions have been inserted the power to levy tax on mobile towers in the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 and the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993.

The cellular operators who challenged the law contended that the levy is beyond the scope of Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The Seventh Schedule contains the three lists about the legislative powers of the Centre (List I), the States (List II) and the Concurrent (List III). There the provision that the laws made by Parliament shall prevail over those made by state legislatures in the case of List III. Entry 49 relates to levying of tax on land and property. They argued that “telegraphs” which is heading under which the function of the mobile towers is to be construed is Entry 31 in List I or the Central list. The court has said that if the mobile towers can be shown to be falling under the heading of “land and property”, then the local bodies can levy the tax as under Entry 49 of List II.

The court considered the definitions of ‘land’ and ‘building’ defined in the various legal lexicons, Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, Black’s Law Dictionary and P Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law Lexicon. It also referred to two of its earlier decisions. First, in Goodricke Group Ltd and Others vs. State of W.B. (West Bengal) and others, it held that the “cess imposed on green tea (leaves) by weight was held to be a tax on land and not on the produce. In Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee vs. Local Board of Barpeta “a levy on holding a market was held to be essentially a levy on land and, therefore, authorised by Entry 49 of List II though the levy was imposed only on the days when the market was held.”

The court explained that “the incidence of the tax is not on the use of the plant and machinery in the Mobile Tower; rather it is on the use of the land or building, as may be, for the purpose of the mobile tower”.

The cellular operators were told that they could challenge in the relevant court about whether the tax could be retrospective, or about the quantum of the levy: “…we leave it open, so far as the cellular operators in the Bombay cases are concerned, to agitate the issue with regard to the retrospective operation of the assessment/demand of tax and the quantum thereof before the appropriate forum, if so advised.”

Lead picture: The apex court has ruled that the tax will be paid by service provider and not the owner of the land or building where the mobile tower is situated. Photo: UNI