The High Court · 2025

authority and contrary to Rule 16 of G.O.Ms. No.2 dated .19.02.2021 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the r:ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent not to take coercive steps against the tower erected on building bearing No. 1 -6-141l43115121C11, Sri Ram Nagar, near Vision School, Suryapet, pending disposal of the main writ petition lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to direct the 4th respondent to forthwith remove the seal of tower r:rected on the building bearing No. 1-6-141l43l1sl2lcl1 , Sri Ram Nagar, near ',./ision School, Suryapet, pending disposal of the main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSART Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: GP FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATIONS Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI KRISHNA REDDY PUTTA, SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5&6: - The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE IC LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.612 OF 2025 ORALORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, leamed Govemment leader for Information Technology, Electronics and Communications appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Mr. Krishna Reddy Putta, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner herein has obtained permission dated

09.10.2024 from respondent No.4 for erection of Telecommunication Infrastructure Tower (TIT) situated at 1-6-141143/l5l2lClA, Near Vision School, Ward No.l, Block No.6, Sri Ramnagar, Suryapet. The said permission was granted for installation of establishment of Mobile Tower on consideration of lndian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016 (for short 'Rules, 2016') issued by respondent No.2 vide G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 19.02.2021, more particularly, Rule - 8. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.30357 of 2024, to declare the action of respondent No.4 Municipality in granting permission dated 09.10.2024 as illegal. Vide order dated

30.10.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition granting 2 I. L,J u P 'ro 612 of2025 liberty to rospondent Nos.4 and 5 to prefer an appeal/representation before the District Nodal Officer i.e., Additional Collector (Local Body) ventitating their grievance including permission dated 0g.10.2024 accorded in favour of the petitioner her:in by respondent NO.4 for installation of mobile tower within ten (J0) days from the date of receipt of coy of the said order. On filing such appeal/representation, this Court directed the District Nodal ( )fficer to decide thc same by putting the petitioner, respondent Nos.4 rnd 5 and all interestod parties on notice and affording thern an opportuniry. Liberry rvas also granted to them to raise all the grounds and contentions rvhich they have raised in thc said wrlt petitior-r and the same shall be considered by the District Nodal Otficcr' This Court also dirccled respondent No.3 to complete the entirc exercisc within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of said order.

3. In compliance with the said order, rcspotrdent Nos.5 and 6 prefcrred an appeal before respondent No.3, vrho in turr. vide proccedings dated 21.12.2024 cancclled the permission dated

09.10.2024. Respondent No.3 also directed respondent No.4 Municipalrt.{' 10 take immediate steps to enforce thc cancellation , t'7'1' : I I T t I 3 KI-,I WP No 612 o12025 orders and ensure that no further installation activities take place at the proposed site.

4. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that an appeal lies against the said order to the District Resolution Officer at State Level' It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the said order was communicated to the petitioner on 30.12.2024 through WhatsApp' Before preferring an appeal by the petitioner challenging the said order, respondent No.4 came to the subject property on 05'01'2025 at 1 1.00 A.M., sealed the tower and disconnected the power supply' Challenging the impugned order, the petitioner f,rled the present writ petition.

5. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that respondent No.3 has no power to cancel the permission dated 09 '10 '2024 issued by respondent No.3 for establishment of mobile tower' It is respondent No.4 which has to cancel the same. As per the said Rules, 2016, respondent No.3 has to resolve the issues' In case, the issue is not getting resolved, the District Nodal Offrcer i'e', respondent No'3 and the Dispute Resolution Officer (DRO) at State Level can intervene in the said dispute. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 21.12.2024 of respondent No'3 is illegal and .3jsi'i:rr-l 4 !.L,J w P '.lo 612 o12025 the consequential action of respondent No.4 in sealing the tower and disconnecting power supply is also illegal and contran to the aloresaid Rules. 2016.

6. In the light of the aforesaid submission, it is relevant to note that vide G.O. Ms. No.2, dated 19.02.2021, the Gove'mment has issued Indian 'fetegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016 notiffing the Govemment of India 1br implcmentation in the State. As per Rule - 8 (iv) of the said Rules. both the Govemment and Service providers in the past experiences have realized that close proximity of th,: touers to certain sensitive infrastructures such as, high density residential areas, schools, plalgrounds and hospitals, have been resisted by the civil society. and can also result in a potential law and ordcr situation. In case the issue is not getting resolved, the District \odal OIficer i.e., Additional Clollector (Local Body), the Dispute ]{esolution Olficer (DRO) at State I-evel can intervene. As per Rule - 8 (iv) of the said Rules, respondent No.3 has power to resolve the issues. He does not have porver to cancel permission granted by respondenl No.4 in favour of the petitioner for erection of mobile tower. Without considering rhe said aspects, vide impugned order dated 2) .12.2024, respoylent No.3 cancelled the permission granted b1' respondent No.4 i I I .-4, 5 KI,J W P No 612 of2025 and directed respondent No.4 to take immediate steps to enforce the cancellation orders and ensure that no further installation activities take place at the proposed site. The said impugned order is in violation of procedure laid down under the Rules, 2016 and also principles of natural justice. Therefore, on the said grounds alone, the impugned order dated 21.12.2024 of respondent No.3 is liable to be set aside.

7. The present writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 21.12.2024 of respondent No.3. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.3 with a direction to pass orders afresh on the appeal hled by respondent Nos.5 and 6 by putting the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6 on notice and affording them an opporfirnity of hearing. However, respondent No.3 shall complete the entire exercise within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the matter will be viewed seriously. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall take steps to unseal the mobile tower and restore back power connection to the subj ect mobile tower forthwith. Leamed Govemment Pleader for respondent No.2 and leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 shall inform this \ 6 t't.,J w P \Jo 612 of2025 order to respondent Nos.3 and 4. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed SD/.K.AMMAJI / GISTRAR }{.ANT RE ASSI //TRUE COPY// .A.bt'o* OFFICER To, 1 2

3. i*t**'*$*+i"g*lrHl,;id;ldii'.s.'ffi +^t",i,J$.:rtllrld.orrector (LB) and District Nodat orficerr (rrEanrJC), suryapet -il',ffi ffi 4 4 il*"!u,,*,=$,,'n---u[,tff$'-q.Hiiffi{'}fl i?lt$$}u"u' o 7. Two CD CoPies B M /BSK HIGH COURT DATED:0710112025 ORDER WP.No.612 of 2025 t o f. 1r, C S14 14- o ( 12 rE} 2t25 * o Fg,',ATCH eO * 6( o ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS /o 4z //z /,Zl I i I l ! i