Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 29th July, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010375782025
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohan Lal Sharma, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing counsel for MCD with Mr. Devvrat Tiwari and Mr. Ritik Anmol, Advocates for
R-1/MCD.
Mr. Deepank Yadav and Mr. Nishant, Advocates for R-2.
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the permission letter dated 25th April, 2025 issued by respondent no.1/MCD in favour of respondent no.2/ M/s Indus Tower Pvt. Ltd., for setting up a Ground Base Monopole (hereinafter referred to as ‘GBM’) in the park of the residential society at Pocket-11, DDA Janta Flats, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi.
2. The petitioner in the present case is the Residents Welfare Association of residents residing in DDA Janta Flats at Jasola Vihar, New Delhi – 110025 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Society’).
3. Notice in the present petition was issued on 4th June, 2025.
4. On the same date, an order was passed to maintain status quo in respect of erection of the GBM.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that residents of the Society were not consulted for construction of the said GBM and the construction of the said GBM would affect the health and lives of the residents of the Society. It also reduces the area of the park which is used by the residents for walking, playing, jogging etc.
6. A short affidavit in response to the petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1/MCD, wherein it is stated that an application was received from respondent no.2 for setting up a GBM. Pursuant thereto, MCD conducted a joint survey with officials of respondent no.2 and permission was granted.
7. It is further stated that permission has been granted in terms of the policy for ‘Setting up Communication Cellular Mobile Towers on Wheels (COW)/MBTS’ and ‘Setting up Mobile Towers on land/buildings/properties owned and managed by MCD’ dated 19th September, 2022. In terms of the aforesaid policy, mobile towers can be set up in public places such as parks, subject to the condition that the maximum area per mobile tower shall be allotted up to 50 sq. meters with a maximum width of 8 meters.
8. It is stated that in terms of the aforesaid policy, permission has been granted to respondent no.2 for setting up the GBM.
9. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2/M/s Indus Tower Pvt. Ltd. wherein it is stated that the permission has been granted in favour of respondent no.2 in terms of the applicable policy. It is stated that only an area of 13.[9] sq. meters has been granted to the respondent no.2 for setting up a GBM whereas the policy permits area up to 50 sq. meters.
10. I have heard the counsel for the parties.
11. Establishment of a robust telecom infrastructure, including mobile towers, is a matter of critical public interest to ensure seamless connectivity. Accordingly, telecommunication services have been included under “public utilities” as defined under Section 2(44-A) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 along with other utilities such as water supply, sewerage and drainage, gas distribution systems, etc. This is an acknowledgement of the fact that telecommunication services and the equipment required for providing the same are essential public requirements.
12. Keeping this in mind, MCD has come out with a policy for installation of GBM in the area under its jurisdiction. In terms of the said policy, the permission has been given to respondent no.2 to set up the GBM. The relevant clause 3 of the said policy is set out below:
13. It is manifest from the aforesaid policy that mobile towers can be set up in parks subject to a cap of 50 sq. meters area and the width of 8 meters.
14. Undisputedly, the land in question is a public park which vests with the MCD. The permission has been granted by MCD in terms of the aforesaid policy for the purposes of setting up a GBM for an area of 13.[9] sq. meters which is only a small portion of the park.
15. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot question the decision of MCD for granting permission for installation of the GBM at the subject park. There is no allegation of mala fide in the said decision as the said installation is towards public utility.
16. This Court has already taken the view that insofar as public utility services are concerned, this Court cannot get into issues with regard to location of the same. [Ref. Order passed on 17th April, 2026 in W.P.(C) 5151/2020 titled as Raj Banti & v. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited and order passed on 24th April, 2026 in W.P.(C) 5579/2026 titled as Manoj Malik v. Delhi Devlopment Authority]
17. The contention of the petitioners regarding alleged health hazards posed by the mobile tower are in the nature of bald allegations and are not backed by any material. In Kapil Choudhary v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 2558, this Court, after due consideration of the issue, held as follows:
18. In view of the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed and the interim order stands vacated.
19. The pending application stands disposed of. AMIT BANSAL, J JULY 29, 2026 Rzu