IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO.40304 OF 2015 DATE: 19.02.2026 Between:

Hakeem Ahmed and another …. Petitioners and The Government of Telangana, rep.by its Prl.Secretary, MA & UD, Hyderabad and others …. Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri Ali Farooq, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Raparti Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC for respondent No.2.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed declaring the inaction of the respondents on the representations dated 23.06.2015, 24.04.2015 and 31.10.2015, filed by the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary and declare that the installation/erection of the Roof Top Tower (RTT) by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 on the roof of premises of 6th respondent bearing No.17-2-309/1/237, Chowni Nadi Ali Baig, Kurmaguda, Hyderabad was against the GO.Ms.No.380 dated 01.08.2013 as well as the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rules, Regulations and Bye-Laws and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith remove the said RTT and to pass such other order or orders.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are residents of houses bearing H.Nos.17-2-305/28 and 17-2- 306/B/1, situated at Chowni Nadi Ali Baig, Kurmaguda, Hyderabad, which are near to the 6^th respondent’s house bearing No.17-3-309/1/237 in the same locality. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have started the work of installation of Cell Tower in January, 2014, but on the representation made by petitioners and other residents of the locality, they stopped the work. But, in the month of June, 2014 once again they started installation of Cell Tower Work, to which the petitioners as well as the residents of the locality filed representations before respondents on 23.06.2015, 24.04.2015 and 31.10.2015 requesting respondent Nos.2 to 4 to stop the said erection as it is in violation of conditions mentioned in GO.Ms.No.380 dated 01.08.2013 and to take necessary action for removal in order to safeguard the lives of the inhabitants of the locality. However, as respondent No.2 failed to act upon the said representations, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

4. The main grievance of the writ petitioners is that, the erection of cell towers and rooftop poles within a radius of 100 meters from the premises of the petitioners’ locality, without obtaining permission from the competent authority, has resulted in the emission of hazardous radiation, thereby adversely affecting the health and safety of the local inhabitants of the area.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the erection of cell phone towers and rooftop poles within a radius of 100 meters from the premises of the petitioners’ locality, cannot be allowed as per the guidelines framed by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.380, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department dated 01.08.2013. Clause 5-E (vii) (c) of the said G.O., reads as under:

“E. Restriction to erect Telecommunication Infrastructure Towers:

(i) to (vi) xxx (vii) Heritage, Religious and other structures.

(a) & (b) xxxx (c) Erection of TIT shall not be allowed within a radius of 100 m from the boundary of the premises of school, hospital, heritage buildings and religious buildings or any other prescribed buildings by the Government from time to time.”

Per contra

6. , learned Standing Counsel for Municipal- Corporation would contend that G.O.Ms.No.380 dated 01.08.2013 was superseded by revised guidelines under G.O.Ms.No.96 MA&UD (M1) Department dated 05.08.2015 and the clause-E (vii) (c) of G.O.Ms.No.380 was removed, however, the requirement for obtaining prior permission from the competent sanctioning authority continued.

7. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that Annexure-3, Clause (6) of G.O.Ms.No.2, Information Technology, Electronics and Communications Department (Communications Wing), dated 19.02.2021, clarifies that the installation of telecommunication towers is governed by G.O.Ms.