Telangana High Court
WP/29401/2016 of ASCEND TELECM INFRASTCUTURE PVT LTD., Vs THE GHMC., REP. BY COMMISSIONER, HYD., AND 3 OTHERS, on 29 January 2026
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION Nos:21976 and 294O1 of 2016 IT ETITI : 21975 0F 16N Mallikarjuna. .Nagar
--t
[ 34851
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos:21976 and 294O1 of 2016
IT
ETITI
: 21975 0F
N
Mallikarjuna. .Nagar Welfare Association, Rep. by its president S.Swamv yaoav s/o Muttarah. aoed. 30. years, R/o H.No.2_X_2617g/8, Mallikariun6
La'^?:r;H,Iiqi,T#aY!"1;:l*:,!ztztL?a:'ff :"fl,f,,I3rn,*1,8ilfi Nagar, Uppal, Hyddrabad.'
D
..PETIT|ONER
1. The State of Telanoana,. rep. py its principal Secretary, Municipal Admn.
Department, Secreta;iat, HyairraniO'-
2 Greater Hyde.rabad Municipar corporation, Rep. by its commissioner, office at Tank Bund, Hyderabad.
3. The .Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad, Municipal Corporation, Uppal, Hyderabad.
4. M/s Ascend rerecom- rnfraskucture private Limited, rep. by its Manager, prot No.332. H.No. 3712 Mani Mansion, Oetenie CoOnV, Sa'iniipuii HVa"iEniO'
5. Mallik Akbar Ari Kha.n, s/o.Late .Mailik Ari Khan, aged Major, R/o 2-22-26t35, Plot No. 35, Chilka Nagar, Uppal, Hyderrbaa.- '
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in granting provisionar crearance/permission to the 4th respondent company for installation of Roop Top Tower (RTT) and rerecom equipments for broad band services in the premises belonging to the sth respondent bearing D No.2-23-26135, Plot No.35, Chilkanagar, Uppal, Hyderabad, inspite of the obiections r:rised by the petitioner and the locality people followed by written rep resentaticrns, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the provisional permission granted by the 2nd respondent in Procs.No.l2ITPIPer/HO/TPS/GHMC/CT
12015 148 dt 20-1-2016 in so far Sl.No.3
is concerned
.A. N
P. NO: 27008 OF 2016
Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the, provisional permission granted by the 2nd respondent in Procs.Roc.Ncr. l2l fPlPerlHOiTPS/GHMC/CT 12015-48. dt 20.01.20'16 in so far as Sl.No.3 is concerned, pending disposal. of the main Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.V.V.VEDANTHA CHARYA
Counsel forthe RespondentNo.l: GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV
Counsel for tlre Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA, SC FOR GHMC
Counsel for tlre Respondent No.4: MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI
WRIT PETITION NO: 29401OF 2016
Between:
M/s. Ascend Telecom lnfrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.332, H.No.37-2, Mani Mansion, Defence Colony, Sainikpuri Secunderabad-94 Rep. by its Manager, Sri Sadr: Venugopal
AND
1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad.
2. The Zonal Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, East Zone, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.
Mallikarjun Nagar Welfare Association, Represented by
S. Swarny Yadav S/o. Muttaiah, aged 30 years, R/o H.N
Mallikarjun Nagar, Chilka Nagar, Uppal, Hyderabad.
...PETITIONER
Represented by its
its President,
o.2-23-2617818,
4. S. Narasimha Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy, Secretary, aged 42 years, R/o 2-23-261511A, Mallikarjun Nagar, Chilka Nagar, Uppal, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No. 1 and 2
in interfering with the erection of the tower, which is being erected as per the permission bearing ProcgsNo 12ITP/PER/HO/TPS/GHMCtCTt48t2016i399, dated 20-01-2016 on building bearing H.No.2-23-26t135, Plot No.35, Sy. No.46
and 47, Chilka Nagar, Uppal, R R. District, at the behest of the Respondent No. 3
and 4 and not considering the representation dated 16-8-2016, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of well settled principles of natural justice.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WP
P. NO: 36406 OF 2016)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No.1 and 2 not to interfere in the erection of roof top poles on the building bearing H.No.2-23-26135, Plot No.35, Sy. No.46 and 47, Chilka Nagar, Uppal, R.R. District, pending disposal of the main writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.ROHIT SINGH, rep.
SRI MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRI SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA, SC FOR GHMC
The Court made the following: GOMMON ORDER
) '-)
IN THE I{IGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION
Os.21976
D 29401 0F 2016
DATE: 29.0L.2026
o.2l
of 20L6:
Between:
Mallikarjun,r Nagar Welfare Association, Rep.by its P:esident S.Swamy yadav, r/o.Chilka |Jagar, Uppal, Hyderabad.
. ... Petitioner
,A.nd
The State of 'felangana, rep.by its
Prl.Secretary, Municipal Admn. Department, Secretariat, Flyderabad and four others.
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:
. .. Responclents Heard Mr. K.v.V.vedantha Charya, learned counsel for petitioner in w.P.No.21976 of 2076, Mr. A.Rohit singh, learned counsel for petitioner in w.P.No.29401, of 201,6 and Mr. srinivasa Rao Pachwa, learned standing counsel for GHMC in both the writ petitions.
2. In w.P.Ir'[o.27976 of 201,6, the prayer was, to cleclare the action of the 2"d resp<>ndent in granting provisional clearancef permission \. l'l to the 4ft respondent company for installation of Roof Top Tower (RTT) and Telecom equipments for broadband services in the premises betonging to the 5th respondent bearing D.No.2-23-26/35, Plot No.35, Chilkanagar, Uppal, Hyderabact, despite the objections raised by the petitioner and the locality people, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently, to set aside the provisional Permission granted by the 2nd respondent in proceedings dated 20-01'.201,6 is challenged.
3. W.P.No.29401 of 2076 is filed by M/s.Ascend Telecom In-frastructure Private Limited declaring the action of the respondent No.s.1 and 2 in interfering with the erection of the tower, which is being erected as per the permission bearing proceedings No.12 /TP/ PER/ HO /Tre / GH}/IC / CT / 48 / 2076 / 399 , dated 20 .0L.201.6 on building bearing H.No.2-23/26/35, Plot No.35, Sy.Nos.46 and 47, Chitka Nagar, Uppat, Ranga Reddy District, at the behest of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and not considering the representation dated 15.08.201,6, as arbTtrary,illegal, and in violation of well settled principles of natural justice is challenged. .,, '.,]"
I I
4' since the issue invorved in both the writ petitions being common, bcth the writ petitions being heard together anarogousry ancl disposecl of by this common order. 5' The main grievance of both the writ petitioners is that, in respect of trre Celr Towers erected by M/s.Ascend Terecom Infrasrructure pvt. Ltd., (w.p.No.2940r of 2076 _ writ petitioner) admittedly, the respondent-GHMC has granted permission for erection of said Celr Towers uicre proceedings No.12 /Tp/pER/Ho/ TPS/GHNIC/ cT / 2a7s / 4g, dated 20.01.2016 and the Mailikarjun Nagar Deverop';rlgnl werfare Associatiory who are the Iocal inhabitants of the locarity have made a compraint to the Commissi'oner, G:HM., aileging that it wourd be endangering to the safety and hearth of pubric at large in the vicinity if the said ce, Towers are erected and that due to the emission of radiation from the said towers, th:re is every possibility of serious health hazards to the locality peopre which may arso be dekimentar to the birds and envrrorunent of the locality 6' As seen frorn the averments in both the writ petitions, admittedry, Ceil Tolvers are proposed to be erected in pursuance of i I 4-= i i I I I I I i i I i I i I I I I i I /
the due permission granted by the GHMC authorities. It is also contended that during the pendency of the writ petitions, Cell Towers have already been erected and. have been functioning as on today. Be that as it may, in a recent past, there is a emerging new technology which came out reducing the radiation from the cell towers. In that view of the matter, as the cell towers have been erected by obtaining due permission from the competent authority, petitioner- M/s.Ascend Telecom lnfrastructure Pvt. Ltd., cannot be directed to shift the said erection towers and therefore, the W.P.No.27976 of 2016by the local inhabitants is devoid of merits.
7. The W.P.No.29401 of 201..6, which is filed by M/s.Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., declaring the action of the respondent Nos.L and 2 therein in interfering with the erection of the cell tower by issuing show-cause notice dated 10.08.20L6, basing on the complaint made by the Mallikarjun Nagar Welfare Association, on the ground that due to installation of cellular tower, the colony residents are fearing for heavy emitting of radiation, and due to its radiation and side effects, the local inhabitants would face the diseases and the cell tower management has not followed the .\ -,f
.Fr i tt
I t structural stabitity. Admitte d\y, Mls.Ascend Telecom Infrastructure pvt. Ltd., has obtained due permission from the GHMC ztide proceedings d ated 20.01. -2076
8. In ttrat view of the matter, it would suffice to direct the GHMC to issue appropriate directions to M/s. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to upgrade its technology in accordance with the ner,r, ernerging standards being followed in the recent past, so as to reduce radiation levels and to ensure that there are no health hazards to the local inhabitants. g. With the above directions, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. It is net:dless to mention that the GHMC shall address a letter to the Teleccm Enforcement Resource and Monitoring Cell of Department of Telecommunications of Government of India, with a request to accord permission to M/s. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 1s, grant permission for upgrading into new technology in the interest of the M/s.Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Pv1 Ltd'' and inhabitants of the local resid.ents. As it is also stated that the GHMC has already submitted a letter dated 01.08.2016 for up- gradation of cell towers r>f M/s. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Pvt' Ltd' In that , event, GHMC is directed to take further recourse of action as expeditiouslyaspossibleandensurethatthatM/s.AscendTelecom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., upgrade the new technology which reduces the radiation.
10. There shall be no order as to costs. pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed' SDT.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT STRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER ThePrincipalSecretary'MunicipalAdmn'Department'Secretariat' To, I Hyderabad.
2. TheCommissioner,GreaterHyderabadMunicipalCorporation,officeatTank Bund, HYderabad
3. TheDeputyCommissioner,GreaterHyderabad,MunicipalCorporation, UpPal, HYderabad'
4. The Zonal commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation' East r' ilii"lt.g. Nagar, HYderabad'
5. The Manager, M/s Ascend Telecom lnfrastructure Private Limited' Plot No.332, H No 'gi"/'i'Ml"i ili..ribii:#i;";; coionv, s'inikpuri' Hvderabad
6. One CC to SRI K'V'V'VEDANTHA CHARYA' Advocate [OPUCI
7. One CC to SRI MOHD ISLAMUDDIN ANSARI' Advocate [OPUC]
8. One CC to SRI A'ROHIT SINGH' Advocate tOl':
9. One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO PACHWA' SC FOR GHMC IOPUC] lo.TwoCCstoGPFoRMCqLA?MN&URBANDEV,HighCourtfortheState of Telangan, it HYderabad [OUTI
11. Two CD CoPies BSR BS \.
? a HIGH COURT DATED " 2910112026
COMMON ORDER
'fr ( THE S 2 5 tr8 lrl2f, i * *. WP.Nos;.21976 and 29401 of 2016 DISPOSiING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOIJT COSTS a a4 yh