Full Judgment Text
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 19 February, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 13577/2025 with CM APPL. 55705/2025 & CM APPL.
73454/2025
HARJIT SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Asish Nischal, Mr. Arun Nischal
and Mr. Shivam Kumar Singh,
Advocates.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Advocate for
MCD (through VC) .
Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Advocate for
R-2.
Mr. Manish Rohilla, Advocate for
R-3.
Mr. V. Chandrashekara Bharathi,
Advocates for R-5.
Mr. Nakul Mohan, Advocate for R-6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the
respondent no.1/ MCD to withdraw the permission granted by it to the
respondents no.4 and 5 for proposed installation and erection of Jio digital
rd
mobile tower on the terrace of the 3 floor of the premises of the respondent
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 13577/2025 Page 1 of 6
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2026
17:52:09
no.6 bearing property no. 737, Pocket-1, Paschim Puri, New Delhi-110063
(hereinafter ‘ subject property ’).
2. At the time of filing of the present petition, the respondents no.4 and 5
had laid down the foundation for installation and erection of the mobile
rd
tower on the terrace of the 3 floor of the subject property.
rd
3. Notice in the present petition was issued on 3 September 2025.
4. On the same date, the respondents no.4 and 5 were directed to
maintain status quo with regard to the installation and erection of the mobile
rd
tower on the terrace of the 3 floor of the subject property.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:
5.1. The subject property upon the terrace of which the aforesaid mobile
tower is proposed to be erected consists of four floors. The petitioner is the
registered owner of the ground floor, whereas the respondent no.6 is the
st nd rd
owner of the 1 , 2 and 3 floors of the subject property. However, the
petitioner’s consent has not been obtained for the mobile tower installation
despite the fact that he is a co-owner of the subject property. Reliance in this
regard is placed on Rule 15(1) of the Telecommunications (Right of Way)
Rules, 2024 (hereinafter ‘ ROW Rules ’).
5.2. The aforesaid permission has been granted by the respondent no.1/
MCD on account of misrepresentation by the respondent no.6 that she is the
sole owner of the subject property.
5.3. Installation of the said mobile tower would breach health and safety
standards of the residents. A written representation was also made in this
regard by the residents of Pocket-1, Paschim Puri, New Delhi-110063 to the
th
Officer-in-Charge, P.S. – Punjabi Bagh on 6 June 2025.
5.4. No inspection was carried out to assess the structural stability of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 13577/2025 Page 2 of 6
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2026
17:52:09
subject property. Attention of this Court is drawn to the photographs
attached with the present petition to submit that the subject property is old
and is not structurally stable to bear the weight of the aforesaid mobile
tower. Reliance in this regard is placed on Rule 15(4) of the ROW Rules.
6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5 has made the
following submissions:
6.1. In terms of the Telecommunication Act, 2023 read along with the
ROW Rules, no permission is required from the statutory authorities to
install a mobile tower in a private property. The only requirement is to enter
into an agreement with the owner of the private property and send an
intimation to the municipal authorities.
6.2. The respondent no.6 is the owner of the entire property except the
ground floor, which has been sold by the respondent no.6 to the petitioner.
Hence, the respondent no.5 has entered into an agreement with the
respondent no.6 in accordance with the ROW Rules.
6.3. A Structural Stability Certificate has also been obtained from IIT,
Roorkee in term of Rule 15(4) of the ROW Rules. Accordingly, it is
submitted that the installation of the mobile tower in the subject property is
strictly in accordance with the applicable law.
th
7. A status report dated 10 October 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
respondent no.1/ MCD, wherein it has been confirmed that the respondent
th
no.5 submitted an intimation dated 12 July 2025 with respect to installation
of rooftop telecom infrastructure in the subject property along with
Structural Safety Report from IIT Roorkee and Leave and License
Agreement entered into between the respondents no.5 and 6.
th
8. The respondent no.6, in her affidavit dated 14 November 2025, has
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 13577/2025 Page 3 of 6
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2026
17:52:09
confirmed that she is the absolute owner of the subject property except the
nd
ground floor, which was sold by her to the petitioner on 2 February 2011,
without apportioning the rights to the terrace of the subject property. It has
further been stated that she has entered into an agreement with the
respondent no.5 in terms of Rule 15 of the ROW Rules and granted it
permission for erection and installation of a mobile tower in the subject
property.
9. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
10. At the outset, it is noted that the present petition is the second round
of litigation on the same cause of action. A previous writ petition, being
W.P.(C) 9188/2025, was filed with the same cause of action, which was
th
withdrawn on 14 July 2025 with the liberty to file a fresh petition
challenging the validity of certain Rules of the ROW Rules. However,
despite liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner has not challenged the
validity of any of the provisions of the ROW Rules, including Rule 15
which governs the establishment of telecommunication network in private
properties.
11. A reference may be may to Rule 15(1) the ROW Rules, which reads
as under:
“ 15. Establishment of telecommunication network in property
other than public property. – (1) Any facility provider desiring to
enter any immovable property other than public property, for
the purposes specified under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the
Act, shall do so with the prior consent and enter into an
agreement with the person who has ownership, control, or
management over such property :
Provided that such person and the facility provider may mutually
decide whether to get the agreement registered under the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 13577/2025 Page 4 of 6
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2026
17:52:09
provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), pursuant to
sub-section (3) of section 14 of the Act. ”
[Emphasis Supplied]
12. In terms of Rule 15(1) of the ROW Rules, a telecom service provider
is required to obtain prior consent of, and enter into an agreement with, the
person, who has ownership, control or management of the private property
in question. In the present case, the documents on record clearly establish
that the respondent no.6 is the sole owner of the terrace of the subject
property, where the mobile tower is sought to be installed whereas the
petitioner is only the owner of the ground floor.
13. It is also an undisputed position that the respondent no.5, who has
proposed to install the mobile tower, has obtained the consent of, and
entered into an agreement with, the respondent no.6.
14. Now a reference may be made to Rule 15(4) of the ROW Rules,
which is set out below:
“ 15. Establishment of telecommunication network in property
other than public property. –
*
(4) In the case of establishment, operation and maintenance of
mobile tower or pole over such property, the facility provider
shall, prior to commencement of such establishment, submit
information in writing, in the form provided for this purpose on
the portal, to the concerned public entity along with details of
the building or structure where the establishment of the mobile
tower or pole is proposed, and a copy of certification by a
structural engineer authorised by a public entity, attesting to the
structural safety of the building or structure where the mobile
tower or pole is proposed to be established. ”
[Emphasis Supplied]
15. Rule 15(4) of the ROW Rules requires the telecom service provider to
furnish a certificate from a Structural Engineer with regard to the structural
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 13577/2025 Page 5 of 6
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2026
17:52:09
safety of the private property where the mobile tower is proposed to be
installed.
16. Once again, the respondent no.1/ MCD has confirmed that the
aforesaid Structural Safety Certificate has been duly obtained by the
respondent no.5.
17. Accordingly, the respondents no.5 and 6 have duly complied with the
requirements laid down under Rule 15 of the ROW Rules for installation
and erection of a mobile tower in a private property.
18. In view of the discussion above, in my considered view, there is no
impediment with the respondent no.5 in installing the mobile tower at the
terrace of the subject property.
19. Accordingly, it is held that there is no merit in the present writ
petition and the same is dismissed.
20. All pending applications stand disposed of.
AMIT BANSAL, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2026
Vivek/-
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 13577/2025 Page 6 of 6
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2026
17:52:09
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 19 February, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 13577/2025 with CM APPL. 55705/2025 & CM APPL.
73454/2025
HARJIT SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Asish Nischal, Mr. Arun Nischal
and Mr. Shivam Kumar Singh,
Advocates.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI
THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Advocate for
MCD (through VC) .
Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Advocate for
R-2.
Mr. Manish Rohilla, Advocate for
R-3.
Mr. V. Chandrashekara Bharathi,
Advocates for R-5.
Mr. Nakul Mohan, Advocate for R-6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the
respondent no.1/ MCD to withdraw the permission granted by it to the
respondents no.4 and 5 for proposed installation and erection of Jio digital
rd
mobile tower on the terrace of the 3 floor of the premises of the respondent
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 13577/2025 Page 1 of 6
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2026
17:52:09
no.6 bearing property no. 737, Pocket-1, Paschim Puri, New Delhi-110063
(hereinafter ‘ subject property ’).
2. At the time of filing of the present petition, the respondents no.4 and 5
had laid down the foundation for installation and erection of the mobile
rd
tower on the terrace of the 3 floor of the subject property.
rd
3. Notice in the present petition was issued on 3 September 2025.
4. On the same date, the respondents no.4 and 5 were directed to
maintain status quo with regard to the installation and erection of the mobile
rd
tower on the terrace of the 3 floor of the subject property.
5. Counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:
5.1. The subject property upon the terrace of which the aforesaid mobile
tower is proposed to be erected consists of four floors. The petitioner is the
registered owner of the ground floor, whereas the respondent no.6 is the
st nd rd
owner of the 1 , 2 and 3 floors of the subject property. However, the
petitioner’s consent has not been obtained for the mobile tower installation
despite the fact that he is a co-owner of the subject property. Reliance in this
regard is placed on Rule 15(1) of the Telecommunications (Right of Way)
Rules, 2024 (hereinafter ‘ ROW Rules ’).
5.2. The aforesaid permission has been granted by the respondent no.1/
MCD on account of misrepresentation by the respondent no.6 that she is the
sole owner of the subject property.
5.3. Installation of the said mobile tower would breach health and safety
standards of the residents. A written representation was also made in this
regard by the residents of Pocket-1, Paschim Puri, New Delhi-110063 to the
th
Officer-in-Charge, P.S. – Punjabi Bagh on 6 June 2025.
5.4. No inspection was carried out to assess the structural stability of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 13577/2025 Page 2 of 6
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2026
17:52:09
subject property. Attention of this Court is drawn to the photographs
attached with the present petition to submit that the subject property is old
and is not structurally stable to bear the weight of the aforesaid mobile
tower. Reliance in this regard is placed on Rule 15(4) of the ROW Rules.
6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5 has made the
following submissions:
6.1. In terms of the Telecommunication Act, 2023 read along with the
ROW Rules, no permission is required from the statutory authorities to
install a mobile tower in a private property. The only requirement is to enter
into an agreement with the owner of the private property and send an
intimation to the municipal authorities.
6.2. The respondent no.6 is the owner of the entire property except the
ground floor, which has been sold by the respondent no.6 to the petitioner.
Hence, the respondent no.5 has entered into an agreement with the
respondent no.6 in accordance with the ROW Rules.
6.3. A Structural Stability Certificate has also been obtained from IIT,
Roorkee in term of Rule 15(4) of the ROW Rules. Accordingly, it is
submitted that the installation of the mobile tower in the subject property is
strictly in accordance with the applicable law.
th
7. A status report dated 10 October 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
respondent no.1/ MCD, wherein it has been confirmed that the respondent
th
no.5 submitted an intimation dated 12 July 2025 with respect to installation
of rooftop telecom infrastructure in the subject property along with
Structural Safety Report from IIT Roorkee and Leave and License
Agreement entered into between the respondents no.5 and 6.
th
8. The respondent no.6, in her affidavit dated 14 November 2025, has
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 13577/2025 Page 3 of 6
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2026
17:52:09
confirmed that she is the absolute owner of the subject property except the
nd
ground floor, which was sold by her to the petitioner on 2 February 2011,
without apportioning the rights to the terrace of the subject property. It has
further been stated that she has entered into an agreement with the
respondent no.5 in terms of Rule 15 of the ROW Rules and granted it
permission for erection and installation of a mobile tower in the subject
property.
9. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
10. At the outset, it is noted that the present petition is the second round
of litigation on the same cause of action. A previous writ petition, being
W.P.(C) 9188/2025, was filed with the same cause of action, which was
th
withdrawn on 14 July 2025 with the liberty to file a fresh petition
challenging the validity of certain Rules of the ROW Rules. However,
despite liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner has not challenged the
validity of any of the provisions of the ROW Rules, including Rule 15
which governs the establishment of telecommunication network in private
properties.
11. A reference may be may to Rule 15(1) the ROW Rules, which reads
as under:
“ 15. Establishment of telecommunication network in property
other than public property. – (1) Any facility provider desiring to
enter any immovable property other than public property, for
the purposes specified under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the
Act, shall do so with the prior consent and enter into an
agreement with the person who has ownership, control, or
management over such property :
Provided that such person and the facility provider may mutually
decide whether to get the agreement registered under the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 13577/2025 Page 4 of 6
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2026
17:52:09
provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), pursuant to
sub-section (3) of section 14 of the Act. ”
[Emphasis Supplied]
12. In terms of Rule 15(1) of the ROW Rules, a telecom service provider
is required to obtain prior consent of, and enter into an agreement with, the
person, who has ownership, control or management of the private property
in question. In the present case, the documents on record clearly establish
that the respondent no.6 is the sole owner of the terrace of the subject
property, where the mobile tower is sought to be installed whereas the
petitioner is only the owner of the ground floor.
13. It is also an undisputed position that the respondent no.5, who has
proposed to install the mobile tower, has obtained the consent of, and
entered into an agreement with, the respondent no.6.
14. Now a reference may be made to Rule 15(4) of the ROW Rules,
which is set out below:
“ 15. Establishment of telecommunication network in property
other than public property. –
*
(4) In the case of establishment, operation and maintenance of
mobile tower or pole over such property, the facility provider
shall, prior to commencement of such establishment, submit
information in writing, in the form provided for this purpose on
the portal, to the concerned public entity along with details of
the building or structure where the establishment of the mobile
tower or pole is proposed, and a copy of certification by a
structural engineer authorised by a public entity, attesting to the
structural safety of the building or structure where the mobile
tower or pole is proposed to be established. ”
[Emphasis Supplied]
15. Rule 15(4) of the ROW Rules requires the telecom service provider to
furnish a certificate from a Structural Engineer with regard to the structural
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 13577/2025 Page 5 of 6
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2026
17:52:09
safety of the private property where the mobile tower is proposed to be
installed.
16. Once again, the respondent no.1/ MCD has confirmed that the
aforesaid Structural Safety Certificate has been duly obtained by the
respondent no.5.
17. Accordingly, the respondents no.5 and 6 have duly complied with the
requirements laid down under Rule 15 of the ROW Rules for installation
and erection of a mobile tower in a private property.
18. In view of the discussion above, in my considered view, there is no
impediment with the respondent no.5 in installing the mobile tower at the
terrace of the subject property.
19. Accordingly, it is held that there is no merit in the present writ
petition and the same is dismissed.
20. All pending applications stand disposed of.
AMIT BANSAL, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2026
Vivek/-
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 13577/2025 Page 6 of 6
Signed By:DHARMENDER
SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2026
17:52:09