Jammu and Kashmir High Court
WP(C)/3667/2025 of RESIDENTS OF SHIVANAGAR, KATHUA TH ATTIN SHARMA Vs UNION OF INDIA TH PRIVATE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONA, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS on 7 February 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 3667/2025 Residents of Shivanagar, Kathua Through the representative Attin Sharma, Age 37 years; S/O Sh. Sardari Lal Sharma, R/O Ward No. 19; Shiva Nagar, District Kathua-184104. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Bupinder
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 3667/2025
Residents of Shivanagar, Kathua
Through the representative
Attin Sharma, Age 37 years;
S/O Sh. Sardari Lal Sharma,
R/O Ward No. 19; Shiva Nagar,
District Kathua-184104.
…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Bupinder Anthal, Advocate
vs
1.
Union of India,
Through Private Secretary,
Department of Telecommunication
(DoT), Ministry of Communications,
Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road,
New Delhi-110001.
2.
The Additional Director General
(ADG), Department of
Telecommunication (DoT), Ground
Floor, HUDCO Bhawan, Rail Head
Complex, Jammu-180012.
3.
The Vice Chairman & Managing
Director, Bharti Airtel Limited,
Airtel Center, Plot No. 16, Udyog
Vihar, Phase IV, Gurugram,
Haryana 122015.
4.
The Managing Director & CEO,
Indus Tower Limited,
Building No. 10, Tower-A, 4th Floor,
DLF Cyber City,
Gurugram, Haryana, 122002.
5.
The Deputy Commissioner,
Kathua.
.…. Respondent(s)
Serial No. 21
6.
The Executive Officer,
Municipal Council,
Kathua-184101.
7.
Om Prakash Sharma
S/O Late Sh. Des Raj
R/O-Gali No. 3, Patelnagar, kathua.
Tower Site/Building Address: Ward
No. 16/19, Shivanagar Opposite
J&K Bank, Patelnagar College
Road, Kathua.
Through: Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
(07.02.2026)
1. Petitioners alleging that the respondent-Indus Tower Limited, has installed a mobile tower operating the Airtel network in the close vicinity of Shiva Nagar and Patel Nagar, falling under Ward No. 16 (A/P Ward No. 19) and Ward No. 15, Kathua on the building of the private respondent, namely Om Prakash Sharma, without due regard to the safety, health, and residential concerns of the inhabitants of the surrounding locality has filed this writ petition.
2. It is alleged that against aforesaid action, the petitioners submitted a representation 13.11.2025, to respondent No. 5- Deputy Commissioner, Kathua, requesting that no mobile tower be installed or made operational within their thickly populated residential area that no inhabitant of the locality has ever issued or signed any NOC/consent for the installation of the mobile tower. Neither any authority or telecom operator has approached or consulted the residents of the locality prior to initiating the installation process.
3. The petitioners have sought follwoing reliefs: “ (i) Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus: Direction the respondents to stop the operation of mobile phone tower and immediately remove the same from densely populated residential area, as the same is being run without necessary permissions/NOCs and is in violation of rules and guidelines.
(i) Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus: Directing the respondents to ensure full compliance of the existing norms for the installation of mobile towers to curb the menance of rampant illegal towers installation in the density populated residential areas”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have not filed their objections so far and further submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 5- Deputy Commissioner, Kathua, to look into their grievance and take a decision with regard to the functioning of the Bharti
Airtel tower installed on the roof of the house of the private respondent No. 7.
5. Learned counsel for official respondent No. 5, submits that respondent No. 5 shall not be averse to any direction for consideration, as pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. In view of the pleadings, facts and circumstances of the case, and the submissions made at the Bar, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 5, Deputy Commissioner, Kathua, to consider the plea raised by the petitioners and decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the subject.
7. The petitioners shall supply a copy of the present petition to respondent No. 5 for compliance, along with a certified copy of this order, within a period of two weeks.
8. Petition, is thus, disposed of, along with connected application(s).
(M A CHOWDHARY) JUDGE
Jammu 07.02.2026 Amit