Judgment 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is essentially to the Circular dated 30th July, 2011 issued by the respondent-Corporation under the signature of Assistant Director of Town Planning, Thane Municipal Corporation. 3. The Corporation has clarified its stand with regard to the issues dealt with in the impugned circular dated 30th July, 2011. The Corporation has stated on affidavit that the amount payable by the petitioners would be one time payment of fees and charges as is applicable for allowing erection of any other temporary structure and not on recurring basis. Since it is indisputable that the cabin and mobile tower is a structure, as has been held by this Court, applying the analogy of charging fees for permitting temporary structure, the Corporation has decided to levy fees even in respect of cabin and mobile towers. That is the purport of the impugned circular dated 30th July, 2011. 4. In other words, the Corporation has taken a clear stand before us that the amount payable by the applicant for permission to erect the respective mobile tower will be one time liability in respect of concerned mobile tower at the specified location. 5. According to the Corporation, this issue is not the subject matter of the pending writ petitions which have already been admitted as no such argument was considered in the said matters, being Writ Petition No.847/2012 and companion matters. 6. To assuage the apprehension of the petitioners with regard to clause 5 of the circular, in particular, dealing with penalty for regularisation, the Corporation has taken a clear stand before us through Counsel that the same would apply to cases where cabin and mobile tower is allowed to be erected in excess of the permissible FSI area of the concerned building where the mobile tower will be erected. Whether that liability should be fastened or otherwise will have to be examined on case to case basis. The Corporation assures that in cases where regularisation of such cabin and mobile tower is required, the Corporation will insist for submission of proposal for permission to erect such structure as well as for regularisaton thereof together; & decide the same simultaneously. Whether that liability should be fastened or otherwise will have to be examined on case to case basis. The Corporation assures that in cases where regularisation of such cabin and mobile tower is required, the Corporation will insist for submission of proposal for permission to erect such structure as well as for regularisaton thereof together; & decide the same simultaneously. Accordingly, for erection of cabin and mobile tower which is within the permissible FSI area of the building and is not required to be regularised, the condition stipulated in Clauses 1 to 4 of the circular dated 30th July, 2011 alone would be applicable. The same read thus:- “For proposal submitted during the year 2011-2012 (As per resolution of Standing Committee) (1) Proposal scrutiny fees of Rs.7,100/-per application. (2) Re-validation Fees: a. Rs.10,650/-upto the one month after expiry of term b. Rs.10,650/-+ Rs.10,650/-per month (if application is made after expiry of term of one month upto 3 months.) c. Rs.21,270/-+ Rs.10,650/-per month if application made after expiry of three months. (3) Temporary Construction Charges: Rs.2306/-per 10 sq.mtr. and thereafter Rs.1150/-per 10 sq.mtr. (4) Deposit amount Rs.90,000/-per application.” 7. As regards item no.1, the petitioners have no difficulty in accepting the said condition being scrutiny fees payable per application. Even with regard to revalidation fees provided in item no.2, it is fairly accepted by the petitioners that the cabin and mobile tower is not erected within the stipulated time mentioned in the permission so given by the Corporation, the Corporation would be justified in demanding revalidation charges thereof-as is the case in respect of any building permission or temporary construction permission. 8. As regards condition no.3, the Corporation has clarified through Counsel before us that the said charges would be payable only if the applicant intends to put up “temporary construction” to facilitate erection of cabin & mobile tower on the location permitted by the Corporation. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits, on instructions, that for erection of cabin & mobile tower, erection of a temporary construction is not necessary at all, unlike in the case of construction of a building. It would, therefore, necessarily follow that the petitioners/applicants will not be liable to pay temporary construction charges upon giving undertaking-cum-declaration to the Corporation in that behalf. It would, therefore, necessarily follow that the petitioners/applicants will not be liable to pay temporary construction charges upon giving undertaking-cum-declaration to the Corporation in that behalf. In the event, later on it is found that the declaration-cum-undertaking is breached, the Corporation may be free to proceed against such applicant in accordance with law including to demand payment towards temporary construction charges and penalty if applicable in respect of such temporary structure erected by the concerned applicant. That will have to be decided on case to case basis. 9. As regards the requirement under Clause 4, deposit amount of Rs.90,000/-per application, it is stated by the Corporation through Counsel that this deposit amount will be returned to the concerned applicant after completion of construction of cabin and mobile tower as per the permission given by the Corporation, consequent to issuance of completion certificate, as is the case in respect of deposits for building permission or temporary construction permission. 10. In view of the above stated stand of the Corporation, which we have placed on record, the petitioners do not intend to proceed with the challenge to the circular dated 30th July, 2011; and would abide by the procedure and formalities as are required for allowing erection of cabin & mobile tower as per the local laws, including under the circular dated 30th July, 2011. 11. As regards the proposal/s submitted anterior to 30th July, 2011, the concerned applicants must abide by the requirements stipulated in the General Body Resolution of the Corporation in force at the relevant time & pay scrutiny fees, revalidation fees, temporary construction charges & deposit amount on that basis. 12. The Corporation through Counsel assures to dispose of every proposal whether filed prior to 30th July, 2011 or thereafter on the above basis, expeditiously and preferably within three months from today. 13. As regards the fresh applications to be submitted by the applicants, the same will be decided within sixty days from the date of its receipt to avoid the consequence of deemed approval. 14. The assurance given by the Corporation is accepted. 15. We make it clear that in this Order we are not deciding any question in respect of cabins and mobile towers requiring regularisation. In so far as cabins and mobile towers requiring regularisation, all contentions are kept open to be considered on its own merits in appropriate proceedings. 16. 14. The assurance given by the Corporation is accepted. 15. We make it clear that in this Order we are not deciding any question in respect of cabins and mobile towers requiring regularisation. In so far as cabins and mobile towers requiring regularisation, all contentions are kept open to be considered on its own merits in appropriate proceedings. 16. Till the decision is taken on the pending applications whether filed prior to 30th July, 2011 or subsequent thereto till this date, and communicated to the concerned applicant, no coercive action including cutting of electricity supply or demolition will be taken by the Corporation. This assurance given by the Corporation is also accepted. This protection will enure to such applicants who extend full co-operation for early disposal of their pending proposal/application. 17. The Corporation through Counsel also submits that if any adverse order is passed in a given case covered by this order, the same will not be given effect to for a period of two weeks from the date of service of such order. 18. The petitions are disposed of on the above terms.