- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1376 WP No. 108490 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.108490 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNIT NO.410, NEW MUNICIPAL NO.9-1-87 AND 119/1/4F/UNIT, NO.10, 4TH FLOOR, EDEN AMSRI SQUARE, ST. JOHN’S ROAD, SECANDRABAD, TELANGANA-500003, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, 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. SUBRAMANYA SHETTI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.H.ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.11 12:21:26 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1376 WP No. 108490 of 2025 THE COMMISSIONER BELLARY MAHANAGAR PALIKE, BELLARY DIST-583101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHARANABASAVARAJ C., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 16-08-2025 BEARING NO. MTN-BLY-36- 2025-26 (ANNEXURE-A) AND NOTICE DATED 26-09-2025 BEARING NO. MNPB/TAM.SHA/MO.TA.NO/01/2025-26, (ANNEXURE-B) BOTH ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT REQUIRED PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH THE MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER IN THE “PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY”, IN TERMS OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES TELECOMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND UNDERGROUND OPTICAL FIBRE CABLE RULES/BYELAWS, 2021 (ANNEXURE-C) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1376 WP No. 108490 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court calling in question the rejection letter dated 16.08.2025(Annexure-A) and the consequential notice dated 26.09.2025(Annexure- B) issued by the respondent-Municipal Authority, whereby the petitioner's application seeking permission to establish the mobile telecommunication tower in the schedule property has been rejected and the removal of the under construction tower has been directed. Brief facts: 2. The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of establishment, maintenance and provision of telecommunication infrastructure and is a registered infrastructure provided authorizer by the Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communication and I.T, Government of India. In furtherance of its authorized activity, the petitioner acquired the terrace portion of a building situated at Plot No.70, ‘B’ block, Raghavendra - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1376 WP No. 108490 of 2025 Colony, Ballari, on lease for the purpose of establishing a mobile telecommunication tower. Pursuant to which the petitioner submitted an online application to the respondent seeking permission to erect the mobile telecommunication tower, along with all requisite documents and payment of prescribed fee in accordance to the Karnataka Municipalities Telecommunication Infrastructure and Underground Optical Fiber Cable Rules/Bye-Laws, 2021 (‘2021 Rules’ for short). Despite uploading the documents on multiple occasions as required by the online portal, the respondent issued a rejection letter dated 16.08.2025 (Annexure-A), stating that the documents were not properly submitted. 3. Subsequently, the respondent issued a notice dated 26.09.2025 (Annexure-B) to the land owner, alleging that the mobile tower under erection would cause health hazards due to radiation and directing removal of the same. The petitioner submitted representation explaining compliance of all the statutory requirements, however no - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1376 WP No. 108490 of 2025 decision was taken, constraining the petitioner to approach this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned rejection letter is arbitrary and non-speaking, as it does not specify which documents were deficit nor does it reflect any objective consideration of the materials submitted. It is contended that the petitioner has complied with all requirements under 2021 Rules and that repeated uploads were made only on account of technical reversions in the portal. 5. It is further contended that the consequential notice directing removal of the mobile tower on the ground of alleged radiation hazards, is wholly without jurisdiction. The issue of EMF exposure and radiation norms squarely falls within the domain of the Department of Telecommunication and the competent authorities constituted thereunder, and the Municipal Authority has no power to assess or presume health hazards. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1376 WP No. 108490 of 2025 6. It is further contended that both Annexures-A and B are illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed, and the respondent needs to be directed to reconsider the petitioner's application in accordance with law. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent sought to justify the impugned communication by contending that the petitioner has not properly complied with the procedural requirements and the complaints were received from the residents of the locality regarding possible health hazards. It is contended that the respondent was acting in the interest of public safety and in accordance with its regulatory powers. 8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a registered Telecom Infrastructure provider authorized by the Department of Telecommunication to establish and maintain mobile telecommunication tower. The petitioner - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1376 WP No. 108490 of 2025 has submitted an application seeking permission to erect a mobile telecommunication tower in the schedule property in accordance with the Rules 2021, along with all requisite documents. 10. The impugned rejection letter dated 16.08.2025 (Annexure-A) proceeds on the bald assertion that the documents were not properly submitted despite repeated reversions. However, the said rejection does not disclose as to which particular documents were deficit nor does it reflect any objective consideration of the material uploaded by the petitioner. Such a non-speaking rejection, without assigning specific reasons cannot be sustained in law. 11. Further, the consequential notice dated 26.09.2025 (Annexure-B) directing removal of the under construction mobile tower that too to the land owner is found on an alleged complaint raised relating to radiation hazards. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1376 WP No. 108490 of 2025 12. The issuance of said notice without any scientific assessment or reference to the competent regulatory framework is therefore beyond jurisdiction and arbitrary. In the absence of due consideration of the petitioner's application in terms of the statutory rule, and having regard to the fact that the impugned communication suffered from non-application of mind, this Court is of the view that the rejection letter and consequential notice cannot be sustained and matter requires reconsideration by the respondent strictly in accordance with the applicable Rules and law. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned letter dated 16.08.2025 (Annexure-A) and notice dated 26.09.2025 (Annexure-B) issued by respondent are hereby set aside. iii. The respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application seeking permission to establish the mobile - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1376 WP No. 108490 of 2025 telecommunication tower in schedule property in terms of Karnataka Municipalities Telecommunication Infrastructure and Underground Optical Fiber Cable Rules/Bye-Laws 2021, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA EM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11