IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO DATE: 17.04.2026 Between:

Vinayaka Nagar Colony Welfare Association, Reg.No.2255/1994, Vinayakanagar Colony, Hayathnagar, Hyderabad, rep. by its President Mr.Athapuram Ramachandra Reddy …. Petitioner and The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad and others …. Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri Nunna Aravind Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC for respondent No.2.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in issuing proceedings No.11/ TP/PER/HO/TPS/GHMC/CT/2016, dated 29.01.2016 for erection of the Roof Top Tower (RTT) on the residential building of respondent No.4 violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the proceedings dated 29.01.2026 for erection of RTT on the residential building of respondent No.4 and to pass such other order or orders.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner- association was established in 1994 and since then the colony people have been residing there. The petitioner- association came to know that respondent No.2 issued proceedings No.11/TP/PER/HO/TPS/GHMC/CT/2016, dated 29.01.2016 for erection of the Roof Top Tower (RTT) on the residential building of 4^th respondent. Immediately, they requested the respondent authorities not to permit erection of RTT in their locality, which is a residential area. The petitioner-association has also filed a representation dated 20.02.2016 requesting respondent No.2 to stop the said erection and to take necessary action 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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.No.96, dated 05.08.2015, and therefore, the reliance placed by the petitioners on Clause-E(vii)(c) of G.O.Ms.No.380, dated 01.08.2013, is unsustainable.

8. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that in view of the revised Government Orders, the respondent No