The Council Skipped The Sanction And Did Not Wait Out The Notice Period
A municipal council in Raigad district prosecuted a telecom tower company and a landowner over an allegedly unauthorised mobile tower. The Bombay High Court has quashed the case.
The Court held the FIR was registered without the sanction required under Section 142 of the MRTP Act, and before the 15-day period under Section 189 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act had expired. Following earlier rulings, the prosecution was untenable and misconceived, and continuing it would be abuse of process. It was quashed.
- No sanction, no prosecution under the planning law.
- The notice period had not even run out when the case was registered.
- An open question stays open: whether that municipal provision covers towers at all.
- Earlier rulings on towers decided this one.
- Court
- High Court of Judicature at Bombay
- Citation
- Criminal Writ Petition No. 2009 of 2021
- Case
- Criminal Writ Petition No. 2009 of 2021
- Decided
- 11 September 2026
- Outcome
- Criminal writ petition allowed; FIR and proceedings quashed
The case
A telecom infrastructure company and the owner of the land where a mobile tower stood in Pen, Raigad district, were booked at the Pen police station at the instance of the Pen municipal council over the tower's alleged lack of permission.
They asked the High Court to quash the FIR.
Why it was quashed
Following Mahesh Shivram Puthran and Bharti Airtel, the Court held the FIR was filed without the sanction required by Section 142 of the MRTP Act, and without following Section 189 of the Municipal Councils Act.
Even otherwise, the FIR was registered before the 15-day period required under Section 189 had expired.
The Court did not decide whether Section 189 can be invoked for an unauthorised mobile tower at all, calling it a debatable question. It held the prosecution untenable and misconceived.
The result
Exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now Section 528 of the BNSS, the Court quashed the proceedings to prevent abuse of process.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can police register an FIR over an unauthorised mobile tower without sanction?
Not under the MRTP Act without the sanction required by Section 142, the Court held.
What if the FIR comes before the notice period ends?
That too made the prosecution untenable here.
If you are prosecuted over a structure's permissions
- Ask whether the sanction required under the planning law was obtained.
- Check whether any statutory notice period had expired before the FIR.
- Cite earlier rulings on the same kind of structure.
- Move to quash early, before trial.
Source. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Writ Petition No. 2009 of 2021, decided 11 September 2026 by . This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Judicature at Bombay and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in