JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The Petitioner is engaged in the business of providing passive telecom infrastructure and related services to various telecom service providers in India for transmission of mobile and internet signals. The Petitioner is registered with the Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communication & IT, Government of India as an Infrastructure Provider, Category-1 (IP-1). 3. The Respondent No.1 is the Group Grampanchayat of Tupgaon, Taluka Khalapur, District Raigad constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1959 ("the MVP Act"). The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Gramsevak and Administrator of the Respondent No.1 respectively. Respondent No.4 is the Tehsildar, Khalapur. Respondent No.5 is the Collector, Raigad District. Respondent No.6 is the State of Maharashtra through the Rural Development Department. Respondent No.7 is the owner of the land on which the Petitioner has sought to set up its mobile tower. 4. The Petitioner has, by way of the present Petition, challenged a Notice dated 31st May 2021 (Exhibit K to the Petition) ("the Impugned Notice") issued by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. The Impugned Notice cancels the permission / no objection certificate dated 9th April 2021 (Exhibit E to the Petition) granted by the said Respondents to the Petitioner for construction of its ground based mobile tower on an open plot of land belonging to the Respondent No.7 situate at Village Tupgaon, Post Chowk, Taluka Khalapur, District Raigad ("the said land"). No reliefs are sought against the Respondent No.7. 5. The Petitioner's case in brief as set out in the Petition is as follows: 5.1 In order to ensure a uniform and homogenous practice across the country for installation of telecommunication towers, the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India issued the Advisory Guidelines for State Governments for Issue of Clearance for Installation of Mobile Towers dated 1st August 2013 (Exhibit A to the Petition) ("the DOT Guidelines") in supersession of all earlier guidelines. The DOT Guidelines inter alia provide a list of documents required to be submitted by an infrastructure provider like the Petitioner to a local authority for permission to install a mobile tower. 5.2 The General Administration Department of the State of Maharashtra notified a Government Resolution dated 17th February 2018 bearing no. The DOT Guidelines inter alia provide a list of documents required to be submitted by an infrastructure provider like the Petitioner to a local authority for permission to install a mobile tower. 5.2 The General Administration Department of the State of Maharashtra notified a Government Resolution dated 17th February 2018 bearing no. DIR065/CR1/2018 containing comprehensive guidelines pertaining to setting up and maintaining telecom infrastructure in the State of Maharashtra (Exhibit C to the Petition) ("the 2018 Policy"). The 2018 Policy was in supersession of all earlier guidelines issued by the State of Maharashtra. 5.3 The Petitioner entered into a Leave and License Agreement with the Respondent No.7 in respect of the said land. 5.4 The Petitioner filed an application dated 11th March 2021 (Exhibit 2 to the Reply) with the Respondent No.1 for permission to install a ground based mobile tower on the said land. 5.5 The Respondent No.1 through the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 granted a no objection certificate dated 9th April 2021 (Exhibit E to the Petition) ("NOC") to the Petitioner permitting it to install its mobile tower on the said land. 5.6 Based on the NOC, the Petitioner started the installation work and had completed about 60% of the work. The plinth work was completed whereas the metal structure of the tower remained to be installed. 5.7 On 31st May 2021, the Petitioner received a notice dated 27 th May 2021 issued by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 (Exhibit G to the Petition) ("the Stop Work Notice"). The Stop Work Notice inter alia stated that complaints had been received from the villagers stating that they were worried about the harmful effects of the radiation which the Petitioner's mobile tower would emit. That the tower should therefore be installed outside the village. That the Petitioner should stop the installation work till these complaints were redressed, failing which the permission granted may be cancelled. 5.8 The Petitioner replied to the Stop Work Notice vide its letter dated 1st June 2021 (Exhibit H to the Petition). In its reply, the Petitioner inter alia stated that the complaints referred to in the Stop Work Notice had not been shared with it and that there was no restriction under the DOT Guidelines or under the 2018 Policy on installation of mobile towers in residential areas. In its reply, the Petitioner inter alia stated that the complaints referred to in the Stop Work Notice had not been shared with it and that there was no restriction under the DOT Guidelines or under the 2018 Policy on installation of mobile towers in residential areas. The Petitioner informed the said Respondents that for all radiation related issues, a TERM Cell had been established under the DOT Guidelines. That in any event, the fear regarding the harmful effect of radiation was unfounded as the Government of India had adopted limits and restrictions much stricter than international ones, which were binding on all telecom service providers. The Petitioner also referred to two judgements, one of the Kerala High Court and one of this Court which held that there was no scientific data to support the view that radiation emitted by mobile towers was a health hazard. The Petitioner further stated that it had not been granted a personal hearing in the matter and requested for one. 5.9 On 5th June 2021 the Petitioner received, through the Respondent No.7,the Impugned Notice dated 31st May 2021 (Exhibit K to the Petition) cancelling the NOC. The Impugned Notice inter alia stated that the apprehensions raised by the villagers regarding radiation were well founded. That despite the Stop Work Notice being issued, the Petitioner had not stopped the work. That a letter had been received from the Tehsildar as to how construction work had been permitted on gaothan land without the Zilla Adhikari's permission. That the Petitioner had not provided any clarification by submitting necessary documents. That the NOC was therefore being cancelled. 5.10 The Respondent No.1 through the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 addressed a letter dated 1st June 2021 to various authorities (Exhibit L to the Petition) inter alia informing them that the NOC granted to the Petitioner had been cancelled. A copy of this letter was marked to the Petitioner and to the Respondent No.7. 5.11 The Petitioner replied to the Impugned Notice vide its letter dated 7th June 2021 (Exhibit N to the Petition) inter alia reiterating what it had stated in its reply dated 1st June 2021 to the Stop Work Notice. A copy of this letter was marked to the Petitioner and to the Respondent No.7. 5.11 The Petitioner replied to the Impugned Notice vide its letter dated 7th June 2021 (Exhibit N to the Petition) inter alia reiterating what it had stated in its reply dated 1st June 2021 to the Stop Work Notice. 5.12 The Petitioner through its Advocate addressed an email dated 7th June 2021 to the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 (Exhibit M to the Petition) inter alia requesting them to consider the Petitioner's letters dated 1st June 2021 and 7th June 2021 and to direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to precipitate the matter as the Petitioner was in the process of challenging the Impugned Notice. 6. The Petitioner has prayed that the Impugned Notice be quashed and set aside on the following grounds: 6.1 The Impugned Notice is in violation of the principles of natural justice, the same being issued without first issuing a show cause notice to the Petitioner and without giving the Petitioner a personal hearing. 6.2 The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not have the authority / jurisdiction to issue the Impugned Notice. 6.3 The apprehensions pertaining to radiation were not well founded and were not substantiated by any material. 6.4 The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 having permitted the Petitioner to install its mobile tower vide the NOC could not have unilaterally cancelled /revoked the same. 6.5 The Impugned Notice was in violation of the Petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. 6.6 In addition to quashing and setting aside the Impugned Notice, the Petitioner has also prayed for a personal hearing and for permission to construct and operate its mobile tower on the said land. 6.7 The Petitioner has further prayed that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition, the Impugned Notice be stayed and the Petitioner be allowed to complete the installation of the mobile tower. 7. The case of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in brief as set out in their Affidavit in Reply is as follows: 7.1 The Petition is not maintainable on account of the Petitioners having an alternate remedy available to them. 7.2 The Respondent No.7 has not challenged the Impugned Notice. 7.3 The Petitioner did not annex to its application dated 11th March 2021 any documents/permissions as required under the DOT Guidelines. 7.2 The Respondent No.7 has not challenged the Impugned Notice. 7.3 The Petitioner did not annex to its application dated 11th March 2021 any documents/permissions as required under the DOT Guidelines. The said Application was also not in the proper format. The judgement of this Court in the matter of GTL Infrastructure Ltd. v Dhule Municipal Corporation, 2011(6) Mh.L.J. 215 (Exhibit 11 to the Reply) was relied on. 7.4 Despite what is stated in the Petitioner's application, the documents as required under the DOT Guidelines have not been submitted till date. 7.5 The villagers had filed complaints (Exhibit 4 (Collectively) to the Reply) expressing their apprehension regarding the radiation which would be emitted by the Petitioner's mobile tower. They did not want the tower to be installed in a populated area of the village, but on the outskirts thereof. 7.6 The Respondent No.7's son did not accept the Stop Work Notice. 7.7 The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 vide letter dated 29th May 2021 (Exhibit 8 to the Reply) sought the assistance of the Khalapur Police Station to stop the Petitioner's work. 7.8 Since the Petitioner did not stop the installation work, bearing in mind the sentiments of the villagers, to avoid any untoward incident and on the ground of non-submission of necessary documents, the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 issued the Impugned Notice. 7.9 On 31st May 2021 the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 received a letter dated 28th May 2021 from the Respondent No.4 in response to their earlier letter to the Respondent No.4. The Respondent No.4 inter alia inquired whether the permission of the Zilla Adhikari had been obtained. This letter referred to the Stop Work Notice issued by the said Respondents. 7.10 The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 addressed a letter dated 1st June 2021 to various authorities inter alia informing them that the NOC granted to the Petitioner had been cancelled (Exhibit 10 to the Reply). A copy of this letter was marked to the Petitioner and to the Respondent No.7. 7.11 The Impugned Notice was correctly issued in view of section 52 of the MVP Act. 7.12 The Petitioner's reply dated 1st June 2021 wrongly stated that requisite documents had been submitted to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 7.13 The Petitioner had not taken requisite steps under section 44A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. 7.12 The Petitioner's reply dated 1st June 2021 wrongly stated that requisite documents had been submitted to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 7.13 The Petitioner had not taken requisite steps under section 44A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. 7.14 That the Petition accordingly be dismissed. 8. The remaining Respondents have not filed any reply to the Petition. 9. On 15th June 2021, this Court passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the construction, which order was continued from time to time. 10. We heard the matter finally on 3rd and 4th August 2021. On 3rd August 2021 we directed the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to remain present in court with the original file on the next day. They were accordingly present. 11. At the outset, Shri Nitin Mulye, Learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the Petition on the ground that an alternate remedy was available to the Petitioner under the MVP Act. 12. Shri Sarosh E. Bharucha, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner drew our attention to section 52 of the MVP Act and in particular sub-section (2B) thereof. The same is extracted hereinbelow : "Section 52 - Control on Erection of Buildings ...... (2B) Any applicant aggrieved by an order granting permission on conditions or for refusing permission under subsection (1) or (1A), as the case may be, may within 40 days from the date of communication of the order to him, prefer an appeal to the district head of the town planning department posted at the zilla parishad. The appeal shall be in such form and shall bear such court fees as may be prescribed. Such district head, after giving an appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard, may by order, passed within a period of 90 days from the date of the receipt of appeal, either allow the appeal unconditionally or subject to such conditions, as he may deem fit, or reject the appeal. The decision of the district head on such appeal shall be final and binding on all concerned. ... ..." 13. Shri Bharucha submitted that the aforesaid provision would have been applicable only in the event that the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had either approved the Petitioner's application conditionally or rejected it. The decision of the district head on such appeal shall be final and binding on all concerned. ... ..." 13. Shri Bharucha submitted that the aforesaid provision would have been applicable only in the event that the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had either approved the Petitioner's application conditionally or rejected it. The same would not apply to the facts of the present case where the said Respondents had, after granting unconditional approval, cancelled the same unilaterally. Sub-section (2A) of section 52 did not provide the remedy of an appeal in such a scenario. This was a case of the said Respondents acting in excess of their jurisdiction for which, the Petitioner had no option but to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 14. We are inclined to agree with the submissions made by Shri Bharucha on this issue. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 issued the NOC approving the Petitioner's application for installation of its mobile tower unconditionally. Less than two months later, however, the said Respondents issued the Stop Work Notice followed by the Impugned Notice a few days later. Sub-section (2A) of section 52 provides for an appeal from an order approving an application conditionally or from an order rejecting an application. It does not cover a situation where an unconditional permission, once granted, is cancelled. Combined with the fact that neither any show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner nor any hearing granted to the Petitioner, we are of the view that the Petitioner was entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. We accordingly reject the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and hold that the present Petition is maintainable. 15. Shri Bharucha thereafter argued the Petitioner's case. 15.1 He took us through the NOC, the Stop Work Notice and the Impugned Notice. He submitted that the Impugned Notice had been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, without a show cause notice being issued or hearing being granted to the Petitioner. He submitted that the Petitioner's reply dated 1 st June 2021 to the Stop Work Notice was not even considered by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the Impugned Notice. He submitted that the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had changed their stand from the Stop Work Notice to the Impugned Notice to the Affidavit in Reply to the Petition. He submitted that the Petitioner's reply dated 1 st June 2021 to the Stop Work Notice was not even considered by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the Impugned Notice. He submitted that the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had changed their stand from the Stop Work Notice to the Impugned Notice to the Affidavit in Reply to the Petition. While the Stop Work Notice had been issued purely on the basis of complaints lodged by the villagers pertaining to radiation, the Impugned Notice also referred to the Petitioner's alleged failure to obtain the Zilla Adhikari's permission while the Affidavit in Reply to the Petition raised even further points. 15.2 On the issue of radiation, Shri Bharucha submitted that the copies of the villagers' complaints had not been provided to the Petitioner before the Impugned Notice was issued. That there was no material to substantiate the apprehensions regarding radiation. He pointed out clause 3 of the DOT Guidelines, which provided that India had adopted a strict limit for radiation, which was 1/10 th of the international norms. He also relied on clause 4(C)(II) of the DOT Guidelines which inter alia provided that (i) for all existing and new mobile towers, telecom service providers were required to periodically submit self-certificates showing that the radiation was within the prescribed norms; (ii) violations attracted heavy penalties including shutting down the towers; (iii) TERM Cells established by the Department of Telecommunication were instructed to carry out audits to inter alia ensure that the radiation was within safe limits; and (iv) Additional Guidelines were issued to the TERM Cells in this regard. Shri Bharucha also relied on the judgement of the Kerala High Court in the matter of Reliance Infocom Ltd. v Chemanchery Grama Panchayat & Ors., AIR 2007 Ker 33 and the judgement of this Court in the matter of Biju K. Balan & Ors. v State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2019) 2 Bom CR 625 annexed to the Petition in this regard. 15.3 On the issue of the Zilla Adhikari's permission, Shri Bharucha drew our attention to the 2018 Policy. He submitted that the object of the 2018 Policy was to eliminate multiplicity of regulations, agencies and departments for setting up telecom infrastructure and to have an online single window portal for grant of necessary permissions for setting up and installing telecom infrastructure. He submitted that the object of the 2018 Policy was to eliminate multiplicity of regulations, agencies and departments for setting up telecom infrastructure and to have an online single window portal for grant of necessary permissions for setting up and installing telecom infrastructure. He pointed out that the Petitioner had in fact made its application under the 2018 Policy. Shri Bharucha then drew our attention to sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 52 of the MVP Act. He submitted that the prior approval of the town planning officer of the state government posted at the panchayat samiti/zilla parishad level referred to therein had to be obtained by the panchayat and not by the applicant. He submitted that the fact that the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had granted an unconditional NOC showed that they also interpreted and understood the said provision in the same way and that the contention now sought to be raised in this regard was merely an afterthought. 15.4 Shri Bharucha accordingly submitted that the Impugned Notice be quashed and set aside and the Petition be allowed. 16. In response, Shri Mulye defended the issuance of the Impugned Notice on the following grounds : 16.1 He submitted that the Petitioner had failed to stop the installation work despite issuance of the Stop Work Notice. 16.2 He submitted that the Petitioner had failed to submit any documents alongwith its application dated 11th March 2021. He submitted that the DOT Guidelines required certain specific documents to be submitted alongwith an application for installation of a mobile tower, which the Petitioner had failed to do. 16.3 Shri Mulye further submitted that the Petitioner's application dated 11th March 2021 was also not in the format as prescribed by the DOT Guidelines. He relied on the judgement of this Court in the matter of GTL Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) to argue that the Petitioner's application was required to be in the prescribed format. 16.4 Shri Mulye further submitted that the Petitioner had also failed to obtain the permission of the Zilla Adhikari as required under the MVP Act. He also relied on the letter dated 28th May 2021 addressed by the Respondent No.4 to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in this regard. In the said letter the Respondent No.4 had inter alia inquired whether the permission of the Zilla Adhikari had been obtained. 17. He also relied on the letter dated 28th May 2021 addressed by the Respondent No.4 to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in this regard. In the said letter the Respondent No.4 had inter alia inquired whether the permission of the Zilla Adhikari had been obtained. 17. In rejoinder, Shri Bharucha made the following submissions: 17.1 He submitted that the Petitioner had received the Stop Work Notice only on 31st May 2021. The Petitioner thus could not have stopped the work prior thereto. 17.2 He pointed out that the 2018 Policy under clause A(4) provided that the installation of mobile towers on private buildings and lands shall conform to the DOT Guidelines. He then referred to clause 4A of the DOT Guidelines which set out a list of documents to be submitted by telecom service providers or infrastructure providers to local bodies / state governments for obtaining permission for installation of mobile towers. 17.3 Shri Bharucha submitted that the documents mentioned in the Petitioner's application dated 11th March 2021 were exactly in line with the documents set out under clause 4A of the DOT Guidelines. 17.4 He then took us through the list of documents annexed to the Petitioner's application dated 11th March 2021. He submitted that the Petitioner's Infrastructure Provider Registration Certificate, Data Sheet and agreement with the Respondent No.7 had already been provided along with the application. The SACFA (Standing Advisory Committee on Radio Frequency Allocation) clearance would be provided to the Petitioner by the telecom service provider to whom the tower would be leased after construction but before operation of the same. The Petitioner's application accordingly stated that the same would be submitted within three months after the tower was erected. Similarly, the structural stability certificate would be submitted within one month after the tower was erected. Clearances from the Fire Safety Department and the Environment & Forest Department and the ARAI Certificate were not required in the facts of the present case. The Acknowledgement Receipt issued by the TERM Cell would be provided to the Petitioner by the telecom service provider after the tower was operational. The Petitioner's application accordingly stated that the same would be submitted within one month after tower installation. 17.5 Shri Bharucha further submitted that the judgement of this Court in the matter of GTL Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case. The Petitioner's application accordingly stated that the same would be submitted within one month after tower installation. 17.5 Shri Bharucha further submitted that the judgement of this Court in the matter of GTL Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case. He submitted that in that matter it was the Petitioner's case that it had deemed permission under section 45(5) of the MRTP Act. Rejecting the Petitioner's contention, this Court held that to take benefit of the deeming provision under the said section 45(5), the Petitioner's application was required to be in the prescribed form, which it was not. He submitted that the Petitioner in the present case was not claiming the benefit of deemed permission. In the present case the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had unilaterally cancelled the unconditional permission granted to the Petitioner. The ratio of the said judgement would thus not apply to the present case. He further submitted that in any event, the Petitioner's application in the present case was in fact in the prescribed form. 18. Having heard the parties at length, we are of the view that the Impugned Notice is not sustainable for the following reasons : 18.1 The same was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. At least after the Stop Work Notice was issued, the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 could have and ought to have issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner, taken into consideration the Petitioner's response to the same and given the Petitioner a hearing before passing the Impugned Notice. None of this was done. The Petitioner was also not provided copies of the complaints on the basis of which the Stop Work Notice and the Impugned Notice were issued. Without giving the Petitioner any opportunity of being heard, the Impugned Notice was issued and the NOC earlier granted unilaterally cancelled. 18.2 A perusal of the Stop Work Notice, the Impugned Notice and the Affidavit in Reply also shows that on each subsequent occasion the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have raised additional issues. The Stop Work Notice only refers to the issue of radiation. The Impugned Notice speaks of radiation as well as the permission of the Zilla Adhikari not having been obtained. The Affidavit in Reply raises various other issues, chief amongst them being the allegation that the Petitioner had not submitted any documents alongwith its application. The Stop Work Notice only refers to the issue of radiation. The Impugned Notice speaks of radiation as well as the permission of the Zilla Adhikari not having been obtained. The Affidavit in Reply raises various other issues, chief amongst them being the allegation that the Petitioner had not submitted any documents alongwith its application. While these issues pertain to the merits of the matter, the fact remains that the Petitioner was not given the opportunity of dealing with or responding to any of these issues. Even the responses submitted by the Petitioner were not taken into consideration while issuing the Impugned Notice. 18.3 What makes matters worse for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 is the fact that after considering the Petitioner's application dated 11th March 2021, they had issued the NOC on 9th April 2021. It is pertinent that the NOC was unconditional. It would be safe to presume that the NOC was issued only upon the said Respondents finding the Petitioner's application in proper order with all the necessary documents which were required to be submitted and in accordance with all applicable legal provisions. If that was not the case, then there is no explanation forthcoming from the said Respondents as to why or on what basis the NOC was issued. If that was in fact the case, then we are unable to comprehend and Shri Mulye was unable to satisfy us regarding what transpired between the date of the NOC i.e. 9th April 2021 and the date of the Impugned Notice i.e. 31st May 2021 for the said Respondents to change their mind and proceed in the manner in which they have done. Even if there are any other factors which have arisen or come to their notice subsequently and which have played a role in their decision to cancel the NOC, surely the Petitioner deserves the opportunity to deal with the same. Adherence to the principles of natural justice is a sine qua non without which an order passed by a public authority (especially one which is detrimental to a private party) cannot be sustained. 19. In light of what we have held hereinabove, we do not find it necessary to delve into the merits of the Impugned Notice at this stage. We accordingly pass the following order: (i) The Impugned Notice dated 31st May 2021 (Exhibit K to the Petition) is quashed and set aside. 19. In light of what we have held hereinabove, we do not find it necessary to delve into the merits of the Impugned Notice at this stage. We accordingly pass the following order: (i) The Impugned Notice dated 31st May 2021 (Exhibit K to the Petition) is quashed and set aside. (ii) The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are at liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. (iii) The Petitioner will reply to such show cause notice within a period of one week thereafter. (iv) The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 will grant a personal hearing to the Petitioner and pass a reasoned order within a period of two weeks thereafter. (v) The interim order of status quo passed on 15th June 2021 and continued from time to time thereafter stands vacated. (vi) The Petitioner is at liberty to install and operate the subject mobile tower subject to the final outcome of the aforementioned show cause notice. The Petitioner will, however, not be allowed to claim any equities on the basis thereof. (vii) The present Petition accordingly stands disposed of in terms of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.