Structural Stability Certification from a Public Entity Satisfies Statutory Requirements for Mobile Tower Installation on Private Property

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

The petitioners alleged that the building was structurally unstable, the installation posed a fire hazard, and the EMF radiation would be harmful to human health

Respondent 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

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

Section 10(1)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, which defines a "public entity" to include institutions established under a statute, such as IITs

The precedent in Kapil Choudhary v. Union of India (2016) regarding the lack of scientific evidence for health hazards from mobile towers

Statutory bar on injunctions for infrastructure projects under Sections 20A and 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

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

Drawing 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

The MCD itself inspected and found the IIT certificate satisfactory

Regarding 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

As 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

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

All interim stay orders were vacated