IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY DATED: 02.02.2026 Between:

M/s.ATC Telecom Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Urban Development, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to declare the impugned notice vide RoC.No.G1/1785/2018-19, dated 18.05.2019, directing the petitioner to remove the tower erected on terrace of building bearing H.No.1-6-34/C, situated at Gummuduru area, Mahabubabad Town and District, while the permission granted by respondent No.2 vide proceedings No.G1/TP/1785/2018-19, dated 19.09.2018, is in force, without issuing any notice calling for explanation, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner-Company is engaged in providing/sharing its passive telecom infrastructure to various communications and broadcasting operators on rental basis and is regulated by the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885; that in furtherance of objects of the Company, petitioner identified the terrace of a building bearing H.No.1-6-34/C, Hanumangadda, Gumdoor, Mahabubabad District, as suitable for erection of roof top tower and accordingly, petitioner entered into lease agreement with the owner of the subject premises on 28.08.2018; that petitioner submitted an application on 11.09.2018 to respondent No.2 seeking permission for erection of tower; that respondent No.2 granted permission vide proceedings No.G1/TP/1785/2018-19, dated 19.09.2018 and petitioner commenced erection of tower; that while the matter stood thus, respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 03.10.2018, directing the petitioner to stop the erection work stating that tower is being erected in contravention of the G.O.Ms.No.380 MA & UD Department, dated 01.08.2013, as per which, cell tower cannot be erected within a radius of 100 mtrs from any religious structures, schools, hospitals etc.; that petitioner submitted explanation dated 04.10.2018 stating that G.O.Ms.No.380, dated 01.08.2013 is superseded by G.O.Ms.No.96 MA & UD (M1), dated 05.08.2015, as per which, the condition restricting erection of cell tower within a radius of 100 mtrs from any religious structure, school, hospital etc., has been deleted, therefore, the notice is bad in law.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that pursuant to explanation dated 04.10.2018, respondent Corporation has withdrawn the notice dated 03.10.2018, however, the respondent No.2 once again, issued impugned proceedings No.G1/1785/2018- 19, dated 18.05.2019, under old G.O.Ms.No.380, dated 01.08.2013, though the same was replaced by G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 05.08.2015. He further submitted that as per the Telecommunications Right of Way Rules, 2024, dated 17.09.2024, a nodal officer has to be appointed to address the grievance of the petitioner in respect of erection of cell tower and therefore, the impugned notice dated 18.05.2019, issued by respondent No.2 under repealed G.O.Ms.No.380, is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 on instructions would submit that petitioner Company has completed erection of cell tower and the same is in operation and respondent Corporation is not interfering with the functioning and operation of said tower and therefore, prayed to pass appropriate Orders.

6. Perusal of the record discloses that petitioner has obtained permission for erection of tower vide proceedings dated 19.09.2018 and has commenced erection of tower; that respondent No.2 issued notice on 03.12.2018 to stop erection of tower on the ground that the same is being done in contravention of G.O.Ms