- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32138 WP No. 16809 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 16809 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.37-2 PLOT NO.332, MANI MANSION DEFENCE COLONY, SAINIKPURI SIKANDRABAD, ANDRAPRADESH REP. BY ITS LEGAL HEAD REGISTERED UNDER COMPANY REGISTRATION ACT, 1956 BRANCH OFFICE AT SANGEETHA TOWER, NO.3, 80 FEET ROAD, INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560038. REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER S RAVI SHETTY S/O SRI SUBBRAMANYA SHETTI …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH.B.J, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BBMP, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER YELAHANKA RANGE, BBMP BYATARAYANAPURA BENGALURU-560092. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32138 WP No. 16809 of 2025 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING YELAHANKA RANGE, BBMP BYATARAYANAPURA BENGALURU-560092. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BBMP, WARD NO.3 AND 4 YELAHANKA SUB DIVISION BYATARAYANAPURA BENGALURU-560092. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 20.07.2024 BEARING NO.BBMP/J.C(Y.R)/P.R/JDTP-27/2024-25, ISSUED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, BBMP YELAHANKA RANGE, VIDE ANNEXURE-H, CONSEQUENTLY PASS AN ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO PROCEED WITH THE WORK OF CONSTRUCTION OF MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER IN THE PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN TERMS OF THE NEW TOWER PERMISSION LETTER DATED 16.06.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner/company assailing the impugned notice dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32138 WP No. 16809 of 2025 20.07.2024, wherein petitioner is now called upon to stall the erection of mobile tower at the designated place. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: Petitioner/company is engaged in the business of establishing, operating and maintaining mobile communication infrastructure including erection of mobile towers and allied equipments for licensed telecom service providers. In furtherance of its business, petitioner claims that it has obtained the license from the respondent/authority under the 2021 bye-laws for erection of mobile communication towers in the disputed premises. Petitioner claims that license was granted after due scrutiny including petitioner's furnishing a Structural Stability Certificate from a qualified structural engineer along with a geotechnical report, demonstrating compliance with applicable safety and technical parameters. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32138 WP No. 16809 of 2025 The respondent officials acting on the complaint lodged by the residents in the vicinity, the impugned notice is issued by the concerned officials directing petitioner to immediately stop the installation of mobile tower. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds would point out that respondent/authority having granted the licence in accordance with 2021 bye- laws, has no power to unilaterally suspend or stall the erection of the tower without invoking any of the grounds enumerated under the governing statutes and therefore, it is contended that the impugned action clearly contravenes the Indian Telegraphs Right of Way Rules 2016. It is further contended that once license is granted under the 2021 bye-laws, local authorities become functus officio in relation to the approval process and cannot arbitrarily suspend the licensed activity. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32138 WP No. 16809 of 2025 4. Conversely, the respondent/authority contends that public safety concerns are paramount and the local body retains residual powers to intervene in case of emergent complaints, even after grant of license. It is submitted that the residents representation warranted immediate stoppage to prevent any possible risk pending further verification. 5. Learned AGA arguing in the same vein submits that there is no bar on the local body acting post license and the powers under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and the BBMP Act are preserved to safeguard public interest. 6. Having heard the learned counsel on record, the following point arises for determination: 1) Whether after issuance of license under 2021 bye- laws, the respondent/authority is empowered to stall erection of a mobile tower solely on the basis of residents complaint without reference to any violation of license conditions? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32138 WP No. 16809 of 2025 2) Whether the impugned notice dated 20.07.2024 is sustainable in law? Finding on Points Nos.1 and 2: 7. The Indian Telegraphs Right of Way Rules, 2016 were framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, to streamline establishment of telecom infrastructure across India. Rule 3 mandates that any permission for establishment of such infrastructure shall be granted on receipt of complete application and Rule 10 stipulates that such permission may be withdrawn only for reasons recorded in writing and after affording an opportunity of hearing. 8. The State Government, in order to operationalize the Rules, 2016 at the municipal level, has brought into force the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Karnataka Municipal Corporations (Telecommunications Infrastructure and Underground Optical Fibre Cable) Bye-laws, 2021. Clause 14(5) of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32138 WP No. 16809 of 2025 2021 Bye-laws prescribes the licensing procedure, including requirements of structural stability certification and technical clearances. 9. In the present case, it is not in dispute that prior to commencement of the work, the residents of the locality had given their consent for erection of the mobile tower. The impugned notice now seeks to halt the erection on the ground that the locals are experiencing health problems, even though the tower is yet to be erected and made operational. In the absence of any expert opinion or scientific material to demonstrate that radiation from such towers causes health hazards, the action of the respondent/authority in stalling the erection is wholly arbitrary and dehors the statutory scheme under the Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016 and the BBMP & Karnataka Municipal Corporations (Telecommunications Infrastructure and Underground Optical Fibre Cable) Bye- laws, 2021. Such interference, without proof of violation of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32138 WP No. 16809 of 2025 licence conditions or technical norms, cannot be sustained in law. 10. Once the licence is granted after fulfilling the pre-conditions, the local body’s role is essentially supervisory to ensure compliance, not to reopen the question of grant based on unsubstantiated apprehensions. The principle of administrative finality applies, the licensing authority cannot nullify its own conscious decision without statutory authority. 11. While public safety is undoubtedly a paramount consideration, it is precisely for this reason that the licensing process mandates pre-verification of structural stability and compliance with Department of Telecommunications norms, including electromagnetic radiation limits. Any post-license intervention must be grounded in tangible evidence of breach, not mere conjecture. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32138 WP No. 16809 of 2025 12. Allegations regarding health hazards purportedly arising from the erection of mobile towers are largely based on outdated notions and scientific myths, which have been repeatedly debunked by studies conducted both nationally and internationally. Mobile towers have been safely installed and operated across the country for several years, serving millions of citizens without any verified health repercussions. In the present case, there is no expert opinion, medical report, or scientific evidence establishing that the tower proposed by the petitioner would cause any harm to the residents. Given this context, allowing selective objections by a few individuals to dictate the functioning of licensed infrastructure would be wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. Such objections cannot override the statutory framework established under the Indian Telegraph Right of Way Rules, 2016 and the BBMP & Karnataka Municipal Corporations (Telecommunications Infrastructure and Underground Optical Fibre Cable) Bye- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32138 WP No. 16809 of 2025 laws, 2021, which are designed to regulate, streamline, and facilitate the establishment of telecom infrastructure. Moreover, the erection of the mobile tower in question is in the broader public interest, as it enhances connectivity, supports communication networks, and contributes to technological development in the area. To stall or prevent the lawful execution of this project merely on the basis of unfounded health concerns would not only contravene the statutory mandate but would also amount to an abuse of administrative power, defeating the larger purpose of public welfare that the licensing regime seeks to promote. 13. In the present case, the respondents have not demonstrated that the petitioner violated any license condition or statutory norm. The impugned notice merely recites the residents’ complaint without independent technical verification or reference to the statutory grounds under the 2021 Bye-laws or Rule 10 of the RoW Rules, 2016. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32138 WP No. 16809 of 2025 14. In the absence of statutory grounds and procedural compliance, the impugned notice is ultra vires. The respondent/authority’s reliance on general powers under the Municipal Corporations Act cannot override the specific scheme under the RoW Rules, 2016 and the 2021 Bye-laws, which have overriding effect in their field. 15. It is well-settled that the mere pendency of a civil suit, in which no interim injunction or prohibitory order has been granted by a competent court, cannot constitute a valid ground for the respondent/authority to obstruct or stall the erection of a mobile tower. In the absence of any subsisting judicial restraint, the license granted to the petitioner under the BBMP & Karnataka Municipal Corporations (Telecommunications Infrastructure and Underground Optical Fibre Cable) Bye-laws, 2021 remains fully operative and enforceable. Consequently, the respondent/authority is obliged to permit execution of the licensed work in accordance with the terms of the license. Any attempt to prevent or delay - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32138 WP No. 16809 of 2025 the erection of the tower solely on the basis of pending litigation, without an express judicial order to that effect, would amount to acting beyond the scope of jurisdiction and disregarding settled principles of law. 16. In view of the foregoing analysis, the Court is of the opinion that Point Nos.1 and 2 raised in the petition are to be answered in the negative. Consequently, the Court proceeds to pass the following operative directions: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned notice dated 20.07.2024 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-H is hereby quashed; (iii) It is open to the respondents to take action in accordance with law if any violation of the licence conditions or statutory provisions is established, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner; - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32138 WP No. 16809 of 2025 (iv) Respondent No.4 is hereby directed to release the seized articles/materials from the petition schedule property. (v) No order as to costs. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 2