$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 19^th February, 2026 + W.P.(C) 13577/2025 with CM APPL. 55705/2025 & CM APPL.

73454/2025 HARJIT SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Asish Nischal, Mr. Arun Nischal and Mr. Shivam Kumar Singh, Advocates.

versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Advocate for MCD (through VC).

Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Advocate for R-2.

Mr. Manish Rohilla, Advocate for R-3.

Mr. V. Chandrashekara Bharathi, Advocates for R-5.

Mr. Nakul Mohan, Advocate for R-6.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent no.1/ MCD to withdraw the permission granted by it to the respondents no.4 and 5 for proposed installation and erection of Jio digital mobile tower on the terrace of the 3^rd floor of the premises of the respondent no.6 bearing property no. 737, Pocket-1, Paschim Puri, New Delhi-110063 (hereinafter ‘subject property’).

2. At the time of filing of the present petition, the respondents no.4 and 5 had laid down the foundation for installation and erection of the mobile tower on the terrace of the 3^rd floor of the subject property.

3. Notice in the present petition was issued on 3^rd September 2025.

4. On the same date, the respondents no.4 and 5 were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the installation and erection of the mobile tower on the terrace of the 3^rd floor of the subject property.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:

5.1. The subject property upon the terrace of which the aforesaid mobile tower is proposed to be erected consists of four floors. The petitioner is the registered owner of the ground floor, whereas the respondent no.6 is the owner of the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd floors of the subject property. However, the petitioner’s consent has not been obtained for the mobile tower installation despite the fact that he is a co-owner of the subject property. Reliance in this regard is placed on Rule 15(1) of the Telecommunications (Right of Way)

Rules, 2024 (hereinafter ‘ROW Rules’).

5.2. The aforesaid permission has been granted by the respondent no.1/ MCD on account of misrepresentation by the respondent no.6 that she is the sole owner of the subject property.

5.3. Installation of the said mobile tower would breach health and safety standards of the residents. A written representation was also made in this regard by the residents of Pocket-1, Paschim Puri, New Delhi-110063 to the Officer-in-Charge, P.S. – Punjabi Bagh on 6^th June 2025.

5.4. No inspection was carried out to assess the structural stability of the subject property. Attention of this Court is drawn to the photographs attached with the present petition to submit that the subject property is old and is not structurally stable to bear the weight of the aforesaid mobile tower. Reliance in this regard is placed on Rule 15(4) of the ROW Rules.

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5 has made the following submissions:

6.1. In terms of the Telecommunication Act, 2023 read along with the ROW Rules, no permission is required from the statutory authorities to install a mobile tower in a private property. The only requirement is to enter into an agreement with the owner of the private property and send an intimation to the municipal authorities.

6.2. The respondent no.6 is the owner of the entire property except the ground floor, which has been sold by the respondent no.6 to the petitioner. Hence, the respondent no.5 has entered into an agreement with the respondent no.6 in accordance with the ROW Rules.

6.3. A Structural Stability Certificate has also been obtained from IIT, Roorkee in term of Rule 15(4) of the ROW Rules. Accordingly, it is submitted that the installation of the mobile tower in the subject property is strictly in accordance with the applicable law.

7. A status report dated 10^th October 2025 has been filed on behalf of the r