JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. 

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of impugned order dated 02.07.2025 passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad whereby order dated 07.01.2025 granting permission to install mobile tower has been cancelled.

2. The petitioner was granted Infrastructure Provider Category-I (‘IP-I’) License by the Department of Telecommunication to set up and lease passive telecom infrastructure such as mobile tower. The Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad vide order dated 07.01.2025 granted permission under Haryana Government Communication & Connectivity Infrastructure Policy, 2023 (for short ‘2023 Policy’) to erect tower on the land of Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (‘HSVP’). Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad vide order dated 04.04.2025 cancelled aforesaid permission citing reason of ‘public interest’. The aforesaid order was based upon letter dated 27.03.2025 of HSVP. Relevant extract of letter dated 27.03.2025 reads as:

“Since, the Residents Welfare Association, Sector-7, Faridabad are opposing the installation of the Mobile Tower in their locality, keeping view health hazards of the elderly people as well as the residents.

In view of the above cited facts, it is requested that permission given may kindly be withdrawn in the public interest.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 07.01.2025, the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, granted permission under 2023 Policy to install mobile tower at HSVPN, Opp H.No.765 HUDA Park, Sector 7-B, Faridabad. The residents of the locality raised objection and HSVP i.e. owner of the park vide communication dated 27.03.2025 requested Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad to cancel permission granted by aforesaid letter dated 07.01.2025. The Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad has power to approve or reject relocation or alteration proposed/requested by owner of the property. The tower was yet to be installed, thus, Section 16(5) of Telecommunications Act, 2023 (for short ‘2023 Act’) was not in true sense applicable.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6 submits that residents of locality raised objection and keeping in view health of the elderly people, HSVP, Faridabad requested Deputy Commissioner to cancel permission granted vide letter dated 07.01.2025. The Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad was quite competent to cancel already granted permission.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner falls within definition of ‘facility provider’ as per Section 10(a) of 2023 Act. The HSVP falls within definition of ‘public entity’ as per Section 10(b). The property/park where tower has to be installed falls within definition of ‘public property’ as per Section 10(c). The petitioner approached respondent Authorities in accordance with the policy in force seeking permission to install mobile tower in aforesaid locality. The matter was examined by Authorities and as per prescribed procedure, permission was granted by Deputy Commissioner. The permission was granted as per infrastructure policy in force. It is apt to notice here that permission was granted on 07.01.2025 and on the said date, 2023 Act was in force. The Authorities as well as petitioner were bound by 2023 Act besides 2023 Policy. The State Government vide order dated 08.04.2025 has adopted Telecommunication (Right of Way) Rules, 2024 (for short ‘2024 Rules’). 2024 Rules have been made by Central Government in exercise of power conferred by 2023 Act.

7. Respondents are claiming that there was objection by residents of the locality and it was found that health of elderly people would be adversely affected by installation of tower, thus, it was recommended to cancel permission already granted. Relevant extract of impugned order reads as:

“After hearing both parties, perusing their submissions, and examining the record on file, I find merit in the objections r