Owner consent and a qualifying structural-stability certificate satisfy Rule 15 for private-property telecom towers.

The appellants, residents of Ambedkar Colony, challenged the proposed installation of a mobile telecommunication tower on the rooftop of a property in the colony, alleging that the structural-stability material relied on by the tower operator did not establish the building’s safety

During the writ proceedings, the Single Judge directed an independent inspection by an MCD-engaged structural engineer, but the inspection did not take place because the appellants did not deposit the quoted charges. The operator later submitted a structural-stability certificate issued by IIT Bhubaneswar, which MCD found satisfactory

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, finding that the requirements for installation on private property had been met. The appellants’ appeal challenged that dismissal, including the reliance on the certificates and the absence of the directed independent inspection

1. Whether the operator had complied with Rule 15 of the Telecommunications (Right of Way) Rules, 2024, including the requirement for a structural-stability certificate, before installing the tower on private property

2. Whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition without the independent inspection having been conducted, particularly in light of the appellants’ asserted need for more time to pay the inspection charges

Rule 15 of the Telecommunications (Right of Way) Rules, 2024 requires the owner’s prior consent and a written agreement for installation of a mobile tower on private property, and requires a structural-stability certificate from a structural engineer authorised by a public entity to be obtained and submitted before installation; the judgment records that prior statutory permission is not required, although intimation to statutory authorities is sufficient

The Court also relied on the coordinate-bench decision in Harjeet Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., W.P.(C) 13557/2025, as considered in LPA 197/2026, which held that IIT is a public entity within Section 10(1)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, and that a certificate issued by an IIT authority satisfies Rule 15(4)

The Court found that the property owner had consented to the installation and that the operator had obtained both a structural-stability certificate from an MCD-authorised engineer and an IIT Bhubaneswar certificate stating that the building was safe to bear the tower’s additional load; MCD had also examined and accepted the IIT certificate

It therefore agreed with the Single Judge that the Rule 15 requirements had been met. The appellants’ claim that they needed more time to pay for the independent inspection was unsupported by material on the record. In any event, the Single Judge had considered the IIT certificate in addition to the other structural-stability certificate, and the appellate court found no basis to revisit the structural-safety assessment

It dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit, disposed of the pending application, and made no order as to costs.