ORDER

Heard Sri Ali Faraz Farooqui representing Mr.Ali Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Midde Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed to declare the impugned proceedings No.20/HO/TPS/GHMC/CT/2014/ 1882, dt.02/15.09.2014 as illegal, arbitrary and against the G.O.Ms.No.380, dt.01.08.2013 as well as the GHMC Rules, Regulations and Bye-Laws by setting aside the same, and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith stop the erection/installation of Telecommunication Roof Top Tower (RTT) in the premises No.13-6-773/1/A, Kulsumpura, Toli Masjid, Girikapally, Karwan, Hyderabad and pass such other order or orders.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the absolute owner and lawful possessor of the property bearing H.No.13-6-773/1/A situated at Kulsumpura, Hyderabad, acquired through a registered sale deed Doc.No.1432 of 1991, dated 07.05.1991. While so, respondent No.5, who is the petitioner’s sister, was permitted to reside in a portion of the house purely on a permissive basis and has no ownership rights over the property. Taking advantage of the same, husband of respondent No.5, in collusion with respondent No.4, attempted to erect a Telecommunication Roof Top Tower (RTT) on the petitioner’s property without consent. By misrepresenting facts and suppressing the petitioner’s ownership, respondent No.4 obtained provisional vide permission from GHMC proceedings No.20/HO/ TPS/GHMC/CT/2014/1882 dated 02/15.09. 2014.

4. Additionally, as the petitioner’s property is situated near a Toli Mosque, schools, and within a densely populated residential area, the tower construction poses danger as it is near to high-tension electrical lines, violating safety norms and regulatory conditions.

5. The petitioner contends that the permission granted is against the conditions prescribed under G.O. Ms. No. 380 of 2013 MA, dated 01.08.2013 and related G.Os. and without obtaining consent from the petitioner and neighboring residents. Despite objections and representations submitted by the petitioner and local residents, the authorities failed to act upon the same.

6. 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 his consent and obtaining permission from the competent authority, 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, as it would result in the emission of hazardous radiation, thereby adversely affecting the health and safety of the local inhabitants of the area. 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

7. , 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 of obtaining prior permission from the competent sanctioning authority continued.

8