WP/17184/2014 of Indo American School, Vs The Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary on 2 February 2026

ORDER:

I{eard Mr. A.Ravinder, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. K.Siddarth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Karimnagar Municipal Corporation for respondent No.2

2. The instant writ petition has been filed declaring the inaction on the part of 2^d respondent in taking necessary steps for removal of cell phone towers/roof top poles erected on the land and building of 3'd respondent pursuant to the representation made by the petitione r on 25.01.2014, as illegaI, arbitrary and contrary to Articles 14 and 21. of the Constitution of India.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been running an educational institution, namely, Indo American School, situated at Mathangi Complex in Godavarikhani, since the academic year 2007-02. It is contended that certain cellular companies, without obtaining the necessary permission from respondent No.2, installed cell towers and rooftop poles on the land and building belonging to respondent No.3, within a radius of 100 meters from the petitioner's school. The petitioner alleges that the radiation emitted l:rom the said towers and poles is hazardous and poses a serious threat to the life and health of the students and teaching staff, an<l that the students are being adversely affected by such emission;.

4. In ':his regard, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.01,.201,4 to respondent No.2, bringing to his notice the erection of the cell phone towers and requesting necessary acfion for removal in order to srafeguard the lives of the children and the inhabitants of the 1'.)

/l locality. However, as respondent No.2 failed to act upon the said representation, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. 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 petitioner-school, without obtaining permission from the competent authority, has resulted in the emission of hazardous radiation, thereby adversely affecting the health and safety of the students as well as the local inhabitants of the area. 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 petitioner-school, 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: "8. Restriction to erect Telecommunication Infrastrucfure 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 I

r-' buildings and religious buildings or any other prescribed buildings by the Government from time to time."

6. Per ('ontro learned Standing Counsel for Municipal- Corporation would contend that after filing the present writ petition, the 2"d r,:spondent-Corporation had issued notices to the respondent Nos.4 to 6 utde Lr.Roc.No.Gl/496ITPS/RMC/2025, dated 77.10.2025 to remove the cell towers. However, it is contended that the G.O.Ms. \o.380 dated 01.08.2013 was superseded by revised guidelin,:s 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 and the requirement for obtaining prior permission from the compete.rt sanctioning authority continued. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that Annexure-3, Clause (6) of G.O.Ms.lrlo.2., Information Technology, Electronics and Communications Department (Communications Wing), dated 79.02.2021, clarifies that the installation of telecommunication towers is governed by G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 05.08.2015, and therefore, the G.O.Ms.l.lo.380, dated 01.08.2013, is unsustainable. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that in view of the revised Government reliance placed by the petitioner on Clause-E(vii)(c) of I /

Orders, the respondent No.2-Corporation has no power by virtue of Section 14(4) of Telecommunications Act,2023 to take action against the respondent Nos.5 to 7-cellular companies unless there is permission of an officer authorized by the Central Government. Further, Section 1,2 of. the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the Rule 15 of the Telecommunications (Right of Way) Rules, 2024, specifically lays out the powers of persons, who owns, controls, or manages the property, where the telecom operators want to establish a tow'er

7. In the light of the above and in view of the revised Government orders issued from time to time, now the 2"d respondent-Corporation has no authority to initiate action against the alleged erected cell towers. Admittedly, the alleged cell phone towers were erected in the year 2005 and have been functioning as on today. As per the guidelines, all radiation related technical details are dealt with by the Telecom Enforcement, Resource and Monitoring (TERM), Cell of Department of Telecommunications.

8. Be that as it may, it is brought to the notice of this Court that in the recent past, new and advanced technologies have emerged which considerably reduce radiation levels from cell towers. In that view of l:he rnatter, since the subject ce[ towers have already been erected ernd have been functioning since 200s, this Court is not inclined 1;o issue any clirection to the cellular companies to shift the said towerrs.

9. In that view of the matter it would suffice to direct the respondent No.2-Corportion to issue appropriate directions to the respondent Nos.4 to 6-cellular companies to upgrade its technology in accord,lnc() with the ner,r, ernerging standards being following in the recenl: past, so as to reduce radiation levels and to ensure that there are tlo health hazards to the students and the local inhabitants.

10. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. It is needless to rnention that the respondent No.2-Corporation shall address il lertter to the Telecom Enforcement, Resource and Monitoring (TERM) Cell, Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, with a request to accord permission to the respondent Nos.4 to 7 to grant permission for upgrading into new technologrr in the interest of the school students, inhabitants of the local resid,:nts and general public at large. ( r f'

11. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed. SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDDY STANT REGIS /TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER To, -r--. rr^ Ar rn Tha Government of Telangalq, Hyderabad' .1. Thb Prtnctpal Secretary' ttllty.D The Governmen

2. The Commilsioner at Ramag,iriO;*, if'" nr*rgundam Municipal ;, ?fi:tiffiil3llff'A*ffi:ir?ili5fi,tar Lim ted^3rd F.oor' Khan Lateer Khan -; +kd#:$*filt-U$lt3lff t?3?ed, 6th,oor, Varu n rowers I I ' i,ff g Xt * "llS "d??-Xi fj'?.J& c o m m u ni c Sl : :' L i m i te d' 6t h F r oo r' lgt*'umff**ffff *I3*5^;". loPUCl

9. -one CC to SRI MOHD I-qIIMUDDIN ANS-ARI' Advocate IOPUCI 10 rwo ccs tJb'p'E6ii MUNrctiiiAb'rtrri(sj5floN & URBAN DEVELoprrnEr.rr, High court'i;;id si;te of Telangana [our] 11 Two CD CoPies BN M"*,

HIGH COURT DATED i02l02l2026

ORDER

No.17'184 of 2014 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o 3 t{lP ?ttlt THE S * t * {a