Article 226 review cannot disturb MCD’s policy-compliant permission for public-utility mobile towers absent mala fides.

The petitioner, a Residents Welfare Association representing residents of DDA Janta Flats, Pocket-11, Jasola Vihar, challenged the permission letter dated 25 April 2025 issued by the MCD in favour of M/s Indus Tower Pvt. Ltd. for installing a Ground Base Monopole (“GBM”) in the society’s public park.

The petitioner alleged that residents had not been consulted, that the GBM would reduce the usable park area, and that it could adversely affect residents’ health.

Notice was issued on 4 June 2025, and the Court directed maintenance of status quo regarding erection of the GBM.

The MCD stated that it had conducted a joint survey and granted permission under its policy dated 19 September 2022 concerning mobile towers on MCD-owned or managed land and properties.

The policy permitted mobile towers in public places, including parks, subject to a maximum area of 50 square metres and a maximum width of 8 metres.

The respondent company stated that it had been allotted only 13.9 square metres for the GBM.

1. Whether the MCD’s permission for installation of the GBM in the public park was contrary to the applicable policy or otherwise liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the alleged health hazards from the mobile tower constituted a sufficient legal basis to interfere with the MCD’s permission.

3. Whether the petitioner could challenge the location of a public-utility installation in the absence of mala fides or demonstrated violation of law.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, under which judicial review is concerned with the legality and decision-making process of an administrative action rather than substitution of the Court’s view for that of the competent authority, particularly where no mala fides or statutory violation is shown.

It relied on Section 2(44-A) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which includes telecommunication services among “public utilities,” thereby recognising telecom infrastructure as an essential public requirement.

The MCD’s policy dated 19 September 2022 permitted installation of mobile towers in public places, including parks, subject to a maximum area of 50 square metres and width of 8 metres.

The Court further relied on Raj Banti v. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited and Manoj Malik v. Delhi Development Authority for the principle that, in matters involving public-utility services, the Court should not ordinarily interfere with the authority’s decision regarding the location of the utility absent illegality or other recognised grounds of judicial review.

On health concerns, it followed Kapil Choudhary v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 2558, which held that unsupported allegations regarding health hazards from mobile towers, without scientific evidence or proof of violation of prescribed norms, do not justify judicial interference.

The Court found that the land was an MCD-owned public park and that the permission had been granted under the applicable policy.

Since the permitted area was only 13.9 square metres—well below the policy ceiling of 50 square metres—the installation was within the policy parameters and occupied only a small portion of the park.

The Court held that telecom infrastructure serves a critical public interest and constitutes a public utility; consequently, it could not reassess the MCD’s decision concerning the location of the GBM in writ jurisdiction merely because residents preferred an alternative location.

There was no allegation of mala fides, and the petitioner did not establish any statutory or policy violation.

The health-related objections were treated as bald assertions unsupported by scientific material or evidence of breach of applicable safety norms, and therefore did not satisfy the standard recognised in Kapil Choudhary.

It held that the MCD’s permission for installation of the GBM was consistent with the applicable policy, concerned a public utility, and was not shown to be mala fide, illegal, or otherwise amenable to interference under Article 226.

The health-hazard objections, being unsupported by material evidence, were insufficient to invalidate the permission.

The writ petition was dismissed, the interim status quo order was vacated, and the pending application was disposed of.