Facts
The petitioners, residents of Ambedkar Colony, Chattarpur, filed a writ petition seeking to halt the installation of a mobile telecommunication tower by Respondent No. 6 on the terrace of a private building owned by Respondent No. 5
Source reference: para. 1-2The petitioners alleged that the building was structurally unstable, the installation posed a fire hazard, and the EMF radiation would be harmful to human health
Source reference: para. 3, 7Respondent No. 6 contended that they had entered into a valid Compensation Agreement with the owner and complied with the Telecommunications (Right of Way) Rules, 2024, by obtaining structural stability certificates from an MCD-authorized engineer and IIT Bhubaneswar
Source reference: para. 5.1, 5.2, 6, 10Issues
1. Whether the installation of a mobile tower on private property requires prior permission from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) under the current regulatory framework.
Source reference: para. 11-142. Whether the technical certifications provided by Respondent No. 6 satisfy the requirements of structural safety.
Source reference: para. 16-193. Whether the allegations regarding health hazards from EMF radiation provide a sufficient legal ground to restrain the installation.
Source reference: para. 21Law Applied
Rule 15 of the Telecommunications (Right of Way) Rules, 2024 ("RoW Rules"), which mandates prior consent from the property owner and the submission of a structural stability certificate from an authorized structural engineer to the local authority, but does not require a formal "permission" or "NOC" from the authority
Source reference: para. 12-14Section 10(1)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, which defines a "public entity" to include institutions established under a statute, such as IITs
Source reference: para. 16-17The precedent in Kapil Choudhary v. Union of India (2016) regarding the lack of scientific evidence for health hazards from mobile towers
Source reference: para. 21Statutory bar on injunctions for infrastructure projects under Sections 20A and 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
Source reference: para. 22Reasoning
The Court observed that Rule 15 of the RoW Rules has shifted the regime from "permission-based" to "intimation-based" for private properties; once the provider submits the structural certificate and owner consent, the statutory requirements are met
Source reference: para. 14-16Drawing from the Division Bench ruling in Harjit Singh v. MCD, the Court noted that IIT Bhubaneswar qualifies as a "public entity" under Section 10(1)(b) of the Act, and its certification of the building’s stability is authoritative and cannot be easily doubted
Source reference: para. 16-17, 19The MCD itself inspected and found the IIT certificate satisfactory
Source reference: para. 10Regarding health concerns, the Court found the petitioners' claims to be "bald allegations" lacking scientific substantiation, consistent with settled jurisprudence that EMF radiation at prescribed levels is not proven to be hazardous
Source reference: para. 21As telecommunication towers are classified as "infrastructure projects" in the Schedule of the Specific Relief Act, the Court is legally restrained from granting injunctions that impede their progress
Source reference: para. 22-23Holding
The Court clarified that no separate permission from the MCD is required for such installations on private property
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that Respondent No. 6 had fully complied with Rule 15 of the RoW Rules by obtaining the necessary owner consent and structural safety certifications from authorized entities
Source reference: para. 20, 23-24All interim stay orders were vacated
Source reference: para. 25Original Court PDF
Sunil Tyagi & Ors.vsMunicipal Corporation Of Delhi, Through The Deputy Commissioner (South) & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in