AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 186 wordsR.K. Merathia, J.—Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in all these cases, submitted that the Petitioners being the service providers having licence under the Telegraph Act, have entered into agreements with the owners of the building for installation of mobile tower on their buildings, but by the impugned order, passed by the Vice-chairman, Ranchi Regional Development Authority (RRDA), they have been asked to remove towers without any authority of law and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners.
Mr. A.K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the RRDA, submitted that it appears that the Petitioners and the building owners were not heard before passing the said orders.
In view of such submission, the impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Vice-chairman, RRDA, who will issue fresh notices to the building owners and the Petitioners and pass fresh orders in accordance with law after giving them an opportunity of hearing. It is made clear that if any party does not cooperate, ex-parte order can be passed against them.
With this observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.