Disposed¶23

Hari Kunj Rwa v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Delhi HC5 Mar 2025W.P.(C)/12079/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mobile tower; telecom tower dismantled; equipment removed; interference by local residents; threat to security and safety of telecom equipment and network connectivity; writ petition disposed as infructuous; Section 151 CPC application for disposal; Hari Kunj RWA; resident welfare association; South Delhi Municipal Corporation; Respondent No. 3; C.M. APPL. 13287/2025; C.M. APPLs. 37750/2021 and 51275/2023 disposed; hearing date 04.04.2025 cancelled; Delhi High Court; Justice Jyoti Singh; order dated 05.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; the writ petition was disposed of as rendered infructuous after Respondent No. 3 dismantled its mobile tower, and Respondent No. 3's Section 151 CPC application seeking disposal was allowed. ¶23

Hari Kunj Rwa Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition concerning Respondent No. 3's mobile tower at the disputed site is rendered infructuous following Respondent No. 3's business decision not to operate the tower and its subsequent dismantling.

¶18

Court's answer

The Court allowed the application C.M. APPL. 13287/2025 preferred by Respondent No. 3 under Section 151 CPC seeking disposal of the writ petition, for the reasons stated in the application.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

In view of Respondent No. 3's decision not to continue with the mobile tower, the dismantling of the equipment, and the order passed in C.M. APPL. 13287/2025, no further order was required and writ petition W.P.(C) 12079/2021 was disposed of.

¶23

Key takeaways

Pending applications in the matter (C.M. APPLs. 37750/2021 and 51275/2023) also stand disposed of.ratio¶24
The scheduled hearing date of 04.04.2025 stands cancelled.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh), Order dated 05.03.2025 on W.P.(C) 12079/2021 — Hari Kunj RWA v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.: The Court allowed Respondent No. 3's C.M. APPL. 13287/2025 made under Section 151 CPC seeking disposal of the writ petition. During the petition's pendency, Respondent No. 3 had taken a business decision not to operate its mobile tower at the site in question and had dismantled the tower and removed the equipment, owing to continuous interference and interruptions in the operation of the mobile tower by local residents resulting in threat to the security and safety of the telecom equipment and network connectivity. With counsel for Respondent No. 3 submitting that the petition was rendered infructuous, and counsel for the Petitioner concurring that nothing further survived, the Court disposed of the writ petition; pending applications (C.M. APPLs. 37750/2021 and 51275/2023) also stood disposed of, and the hearing date fixed for 04.04.2025 was cancelled.

¶1

$~43

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 12079/2021

¶4

HARI KUNJ RWA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Himanshu Kaushik, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶8

& ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Beenashaw N Soni, SC with Ms. Ann Joseph, Advocate for MCD. Mr. Pratap Shanker and Mr. Gautam Mishra, Advocates for R-3.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

¶10

O R D E R % 05.03.2025

¶11

C.M. APPL. 13287/2025

¶12

This is an application preferred on behalf of Respondent No. 3 under Section 151 CPC seeking disposal of the writ petition.

¶13

It is stated in the application that during the pendency of the writ petition, Respondent No. 3 has taken a business decision not to operate its tower from the site in question which is the subject matter of the writ petition and the tower is dismantled. The equipment has been removed and a decision has been taken in light of the continuous interference and interruptions in the operation of mobile tower by the local residents resulting in threat to the security and safety of the telecom equipment and network connectivity.

¶14

Issue notice.

¶15

W.P.(C) 12079/2021 Page 1 of 2

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/03/2025 at 12:36:49

¶17

Counsels, as above, accept notice on behalf of the respective nonapplicants.

¶18

In the light of this business decision, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 submits that the writ petition is rendered infructuous and be disposed of accordingly.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly and candidly submits that in light of this decision, nothing further survives in the writ petition and the same be disposed of.

¶20

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

¶21

Application stands disposed of.

¶22

W.P.(C) 12079/2021and CM APPLs. 37750/2021 and 51275/2023

¶23

In view of the decision of Respondent No. 3 to not to continue with the mobile tower and the equipment having been dismantled and in view of the order passed in C.M. APPL. 13287/2025, no further order is required to be passed in this writ petition and the same is accordingly disposed of.

¶24

Pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶25

Date of 04.04.2025 stands cancelled.

¶26

JYOTI SINGH, J

¶27

MARCH 05, 2025/shivam

¶28

W.P.(C) 12079/2021 Page 2 of 2

¶29

Hari Kunj Rwa v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Kunj Rwa v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lemon Electronics Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jayanti Real Estate Developers Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 13(3) New Delhi & Anr.

Pacific International (through Proprietor Rahul Nakra) Vs Ds Goods and Services Tax (Ward 64) & Anr.

Chandra Rani Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sushil Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Satya Gujral Vs Delhi Development Authority

Imrana Vs the Special Secretary (Home- Fsl) & Ors.

Himanshu Garg Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes & Anr.

Shri Hanuman Sahay Sharma Vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd.

Prem Pradeep Vs Delhi Traffic Police and Anr.

Asma Parveen & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi through Its Secretary & Ors.

Satinder Pal Singh Vs the Commissioner MCD of Delhi & Ors.

Sh Salman Vs Munucipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Veena Devi Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Others