CWP-3150-2019 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 208 CWP-3150-2019 Date of Decision: 16.07.2026 Residents Welfare Society (Registered) …Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikas Arora, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate, and Mr. Tara Dutt, Advocate for respondent no.2 Mr. Aashish Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Arya Sharma, Advocate for respondents no.3 and 4 TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent/Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Patiala, to withdraw the permission granted to the third respondent/Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited, for installation of a communication tower on the roof of shops no.4 and 5, near Tripuri Water Tank, Patiala, owned by the fourth respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the installation of the said communication tower has been permitted in violation of instructions/guidelines issued by the Corporation for the purpose. The PAYAL 2026.07.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-3150-2019 -2- permission has been granted only on account of political influence of the fourth respondent in the area. The tower is a health hazard to nearby residents of the locality who are members of the petitioner Association/Society, and its permission, therefore, needs to be cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the application submitted by the third respondent for installation of communication tower was considered in accordance with the policy guidelines, Annexure R- 2/1, and permission was granted vide letter dated 28.12.2018, Annexure R-2/2. Thereafter, the tower was installed and made operational also. No complaint regarding any adverse effect on the health or well-being of the people residing in the vicinity ever came to notice. Instead, letters dated 14.01.2019 and 22.01.2019, Annexure R-2/3, were received from the residents of the area conveying that they had no objection to installation of the tower. Further, the petitioner’s complaint against the tower was referred to Director General, Cellular Operator Association of India and Secretary General, Association of Basic Telecom Services vide letter dated 20.08.2019. These authorities have also not conveyed any objection to installation of the said tower to the Corporation. 4. Heard. 5. As apparent on record, the installation of mobile communication tower in question was sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation vide letter dated 28.12.2018, which has not been challenged by the petitioner. Besides, it is a pleaded case of the respondents that the permission has been granted strictly in terms of the policy guidelines issued by the Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any violation of these guidelines in granting PAYAL 2026.07.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-3150-2019 -3- the permission. He could also not deny that residents of the area have no objection to the tower, and have conveyed it to the Corporation as well vide letters dated 14 and 22.01.2019. Lastly, it cannot be lost sight of that the tower has been in operation for more than seven years and no adverse effect on any of the residents of the locality or any other person has been indicated/reported. 6. In view thereof, there is no merit in the petition, and it stands dismissed. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 16.07.2026 Payal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PAYAL 2026.07.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment